MEETING
BEFORE THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
BOARD HEARING ROOM
2020 L STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1998
9:30 A.M.
Vicki L. Medeiros, C.S.R.
License No. 7871
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
MEMBERS PRESENT
John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman
Joseph C. Calhoun
Mark DeSaulnier
Dr. William Friedman
Jack C. Parnell
Barbara Patrick
Sally Rakow
Barbara Riordan
Ron Roberts
Staff:
Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer
Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer
Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel
Jim Schoning, Ombudsman
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
I N D E X
--o0o--
Page
Proceedings 1
Call to Order 1
Pledge of Allegiance 1
Roll Call 1
Opening remarks by Chairman Dunlap 1
AGENDA ITEMS:
98-8-1 Continuation of a Public Meeting to
Consider the Adoption of a Regulatory
Amendment Identifying Diesel Exhaust
as a Toxic Air Contaminant
Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 2
Staff Presentation:
Mike Shceible 4
Geneveive Shiroma 5
Dr. Froines 12
Dr. Denton 17
Public Presentation:
Kelly Jensen 24
Jeff Sickenger 25
Dr. Chung S. Lui 27
Bonnie Holmes-Gen 28
Jed Mandel 31
Allen Schaffer 33
Todd Campbell 35
Janet Hathaway 36
Stephanie Williams 37
98-9-1 Public Meeting to Consider Approval
of Triennial Progress Reports and Plan
Revisions Developed Under the California
Clean Air Act
Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 47
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iv
I N D E X (Continued)
--o0o--
Page
Staff Presentation:
Lynn Terry 49
Peggy Taricco 50
Public Comment:
Ellen Garvey 71
Douglas Quetin 75
Kathy Reheis 76
98-9-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments
to the California Cleaner-Burning
Gasoline Regulations
Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 81
Staff Presentation:
Mike Scheible 83
Richard Vincent 84
Bruce Oulrey 122
Public Presentation:
Todd Campbell 98
Mike Kulakowski 100
Al Jessel 111
Tom Koehler 118
Janet Hathaway 119
Catherine Witherspoon 121
Afternoon Session 133
Kathleen Walsh 159
Tom Jennings 159
98-5-6 Continuation of a Public Hearing to Consider
the Adoption, Amendment and Repeal of
Regulations Regarding Certification
Procedures and Test Procedures for
Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems
Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 133
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
v
I N D E X (Continued)
--o0o--
Page
Staff Presentation:
Tom Cackette 133
Cindy Castronovo 136
Bruce Oulrey 142
98-9-3 Public Hearing to Consider the
Amendment of Regulations Regarding
Stationary Source Test Methods
Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 146
Staff Presentation:
Tom Cackette 146
Cindy Castronovo 148
Bruce Oulrey 153
98-9-5 Public Meeting to Consider Appointments
to the Research Screening Committee
Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 156
Staff Presentation:
Dr. John Holmes 157
98-9-4 Public Meeting to Consider Research
Proposals
Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 164
Staff Presentation:
Dr. John Holmes 165
Open Session to Provide an Opportunity for
Members of the Public to Address the Board on
Subject Matters within the Jurisdiction of
the Board 168
Pollution Prevention Week Presentation
Introductory remarks by Chairman Dunlap 169
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
vi
I N D E X (Continued)
--o0o--
Page
Staff Presentation:
Joe Irvin 169
Adjournment 179
Certificate of Reporter 180
--o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 --o0o--
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Will the August meeting of the
4 California Air Resources Board please come to order.
5 We would ask the audience to please rise with
6 Barbara Riordan while she leads us in the Pledge of
7 Allegiance.
8 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.)
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mrs. Riordan.
10 Ms. Hutchens, would you please call the roll.
11 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun.
12 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here.
13 MS. HUTCHENS: DeSaulnier.
14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here.
15 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton.
16 Friedman.
17 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Here.
18 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell.
19 BOARD MEMBER PARNELL: Here.
20 MS. HUTCHENS: Patrick.
21 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here.
22 MS. HUTCHENS: Rakow.
23 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Here.
24 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan.
25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts.
2 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here.
3 MS. HUTCHENS: Silva.
4 Chairman Dunlap.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here.
6 Thank you.
7 I would like to remind those of you in the audience
8 who would like to present testimony to the Board on any of
9 today's Agenda items, to please sign up with the Clerk of the
10 Board. If you have a written statement, we would ask you to
11 please give 20 copies to our Clerk.
12 The first Item on the Agenda today is 98-8-1, which
13 is a Continuation of a Public Hearing to Consider the
14 Adoption of a Regulatory Amendment Identifying Diesel Exhaust
15 as a Toxic Air Contaminant.
16 This Item will be the staff's proposal to identify
17 diesel exhaust as a TAC, which is being continued from our
18 July thirtieth hearing.
19 Because of Legislative interest, we decided to
20 defer action on this Item until after the August fourth
21 Senate Transportation Committee hearing, in which the
22 identification of diesel exhaust was discussed.
23 Staff will discuss the outcome of that hearing
24 later in their presentation. The record from the July
25 hearing has remained open, and we will again take public
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 testimony after the staff presentation.
2 I would like to acknowledge two members of the
3 Scientific Review Panel who are here today, Dr. John Froines,
4 from UCLA, who has been acting as the Chair of the SRP, and
5 Dr. Craig Byus.
6 Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. I would also
7 like to note that Joan Denton, our Director of OEHHA, is
8 here.
9 Good morning, gentlemen. The SRP continues to make
10 an invaluable contribution to our Toxic Air Contamination
11 Program by providing comprehensive and scientific peer review
12 of our reports.
13 I know that staff has continued to work closely
14 with interested stakeholders on trying to discuss the issues
15 discussed at the July thirtieth hearing.
16 It appears that great progress has been made in
17 gaining agreement on how the most significant issues can be
18 addressed.
19 I understand that staff has a revised proposal for
20 us today that responds to many of the concerns that we heard
21 last month, and which has, we're told, the support of many of
22 those who testified in July.
23 I believe that it is important for the Board to
24 make its decision on this Item.
25 To that end, Mr. Scheible, would you please begin
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
4
1 the staff presentation.
2 MR. SCHEIBLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members
3 of the Board. As Chairman Dunlap indicated, the staff has
4 worked very hard with the interested stakeholders since the
5 July hearing.
6 We believe that we have identified an approach
7 which is consistent with the scientific information assembled
8 by OEHHA and the SRP, acceptable to a broad coalition of
9 stakeholders and fully effective in protecting public health.
10 To that end, we are modifying the original staff
11 proposal, which was to identify whole diesel exhaust as a
12 toxic air contaminant, and now recommending the Board
13 identify particulate emissions from diesel fueled engines as
14 a toxic air contaminant.
15 Staff will present how this approach will be used
16 to comprehensively deal with all of the harmful substances in
17 diesel exhaust in the risk management process.
18 Because we will consider comprehensively all of
19 those harmful substances, we believe this approach is just as
20 protective of public health as our original proposal.
21 Staff also proposes the Board include language in
22 its adopting Resolution to address issues related to future
23 risk management activities by the Air Resources Board and the
24 district and also include the language about the relationship
25 of the ARB action and other legal challenges related to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
5
1 diesel emissions, such as Proposition 65.
2 With that, I would like to call upon Genevieve
3 Shiroma, Chief of the Air Quality Measures Branch in the
4 Stationary Source Division, to present a short overview of
5 this Item, a summary of the outcome of the Senate
6 Transportation Committee hearing and a staff proposal to
7 address the issues.
8 Thank you.
9 Ms. Shiroma.
10 MS. SHIROMA: Thank you, Mr. Scheible, and good
11 morning Chairman Dunlap, and Members of the Board.
12 My name is Genevieve Shiroma, and I will be
13 presenting a brief summary from the July Board hearing, a
14 summary of the Senate Transportation Committee hearing and
15 the staff's proposal to address the issues that have been
16 raised.
17 Today the Board is continuing its deliberation on
18 the listing of diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant.
19 The listing would be based on whether it meets the
20 definition of a toxic air contaminant and whether or not a
21 threshold exposure level can be identified below which no
22 significant adverse health effects are anticipated.
23 In adopting an identification, the Board accepts
24 but does not adopt the cancer and noncancer risk values as
25 presented in the comprehensive risk assessment.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
6
1 In doing so, a central guidance is provided to the
2 risk management process. As discussed at the July hearing,
3 we have a comprehensive Toxic Air Contaminant Program in
4 California.
5 A toxic air contaminant, or TAC, is defined in the
6 law as an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an
7 adverse or an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or
8 which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
9 As a reminder, this slide shows the chronology of
10 the extensive nine-year process for the evaluation of diesel
11 exhaust.
12 Many issues were discussed at the July Board
13 hearing. However, the comments focused on three themes: The
14 form of the listing; the use of risk values; and the
15 potential litigation under Proposition 65.
16 Since the Board hearing, we have worked very hard
17 with a broad spectrum of stakeholders to address these
18 issues.
19 As Mr. Scheible indicated, we believe we have
20 identified an approach which is consistent with the
21 scientific information assembled by OEHHA and the SRP,
22 acceptable to most, if not all, stakeholders, and fully
23 effective in protecting public health.
24 In the next three slides I will talk about these
25 three issues in more detail and our specific proposal to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
7
1 address each.
2 As you heard at the July thirtieth hearing, there
3 is concern over the form of the listing of diesel exhaust as
4 a TAC.
5 Primarily, there are concerns that given the
6 continuing advances in engine technology and fuel, the nature
7 of the emissions may change to a point where the toxic
8 components are not a concern and it would be inappropriate to
9 call diesel exhaust a toxic air contaminant.
10 To address these concerns, commenters asked that
11 the form of listing be modified to reflect specific
12 components of the emissions that are of concern.
13 In response to this comment, we determined that we
14 could clarify the listing to focus on the pollutants in
15 diesel exhaust of greatest concern. These are the
16 particulate emissions and organic vapor phase components.
17 I would like to take you through the logic of this
18 proposed clarification. As you have heard, diesel exhaust is
19 a complex mixture of gases and fine particles.
20 The available evidence indicates that particulate
21 matter in organic vapor phase emissions are the most likely
22 contributors to adverse health impacts from exposures to
23 diesel exhaust.
24 Many of the organic vapor phase substances emitted
25 by diesel fueled engines have already been listed by U.S. EPA
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
8
1 as hazardous air pollutants, and by the ARB as TACs.
2 Other organics can be controlled as VOCs if we
3 determine they convey a substantial part of a health risk
4 posed by diesel exhaust.
5 Listing the particulate emission from diesel fueled
6 engines will complete the process of identifying the
7 emissions that pose the greatest risk and enable all harmful
8 emissions to be addressed.
9 The staff, therefore, proposes to list particulate
10 emissions from diesel fueled engines as a TAC. We believe
11 this approach is equally health protective and provides the
12 clarification needed to address the concerns.
13 Also, on July thirtieth, you heard concerns about
14 the use of the range of risk health numbers in the context
15 that they were derived from studies which used older engines
16 and fuels.
17 I note that the range of risk estimates reflect the
18 best scientific information available. It incorporates the
19 results from over 30 human studies, which used standard
20 scientific methods and risk assessment practices.
21 We also acknowledge the changes in fuel formulation
22 and engine technologies have reduced the mass emissions,
23 which we accounted for in our exposure estimates.
24 These changes may also have had an effect on the
25 particulate characteristics and chemical composition.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
9
1 Further research would be helpful in this area.
2 ARB and OEHHA staff will follow the future studies.
3 To provide guidance to the air pollution control
4 districts, we will develop risk management guidelines for use
5 in their permitting and other stationary source programs.
6 We will work closely with the air districts,
7 effected industry, environmental groups and other interested
8 parties, and we will report within one year to the Board on
9 our progress.
10 Also, on July thirtieth, you heard concerns that
11 this listing may generate many separate civil actions and
12 proceedings under other statutes, or general provisions of
13 the law.
14 You heard a thorough discussion from Mr. Kirk
15 Oliver, of our Office of Legal Affairs, that the ARB's Toxic
16 Air Contaminant Program and Proposition 65 are two different
17 programs which act separately and operate independently of
18 each other.
19 Proposition 65 is a notice law. Under Proposition
20 65, diesel exhaust has been listed as a chemical known to
21 cause cancer since 1990.
22 Since that time, lawsuits have been filed and
23 prosecuted independent of the proposal to identify diesel
24 exhaust as a TAC by ARB.
25 The action we are proposing today is under the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
10
1 purview of the AB 1807 statues for the identification and
2 control of TACs, and the risk values were developed in the
3 context of this Program.
4 However, we are sensitive to concerns voiced on
5 July thirtieth regarding the potential use of the reported
6 unit risk values in the context of civil litigation.
7 We propose that language be included in the Board's
8 Resolution that acknowledges this and specifies that the
9 proper courts must determine whether the use of the risk
10 values is appropriate for specific sources, fuel
11 formulations, engine technologies and exposures and issues in
12 any such litigation.
13 Next, I will give a short overview of the August
14 fourth Senate Transportation Committee hearing on the future
15 of diesel fuel and related health effects.
16 There were four panels: A panel of scientific
17 representatives; industry representatives; environmental
18 representatives; and engine manufacturing representatives.
19 The same issues as those discussed on the July
20 thirtieth hearing were raised through the course of the
21 discussion.
22 At the end of the hearing, Senator Quinton Kopp
23 provided his views. He's the Chair of the Committee.
24 Again, the ARB has had a full public process of
25 almost a decade. ARB has fully followed the AB 1807 law.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
11
1 In his view, ARB should continue with its process
2 for identification, and he felt that some guidance would be
3 helpful on the use of the range of risk.
4 In conclusion, we recommend that the Board approve
5 our modified proposal to identify particulate emissions from
6 diesel fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant with no
7 identified level of exposure below which no carcinogenic
8 effects are anticipated.
9 We recommend that the Board direct staff to begin
10 the risk management phase and to form a diesel emissions risk
11 management working group to coordinate efforts with the U.S.
12 EPA, industry, environmental groups and other interested
13 parties.
14 We would convene a first meeting within two months
15 of a listing. We also recommend that the Board direct staff
16 to work closely with OEHHA, the air districts, affected
17 industry and other interested parties to develop risk
18 management guidelines that the districts can use for
19 permitting stationary diesel engines.
20 The staff will report back to the Board within one
21 year on the progress towards developing these guidelines.
22 Again, we believe this approach is consistent with
23 the scientific information assembled by OEHHA and the SRP,
24 acceptable to a broad coalition of stakeholders and fully
25 effective in providing protection of public health as the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
12
1 original staff proposal.
2 Thank you. That ends my presentation.
3 We would be happy to answer any questions you may
4 have.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Ms. Shiroma.
6 It is clear that great progress has been made, but
7 before we get into asking the staff questions, I would like
8 to turn the time to Dr. Froines, who, as all of you know, has
9 been serving as the Chair of the SRP, to give some indication
10 to the Board about how he views the staff's modified
11 proposal.
12 Dr. Froines, is the staff's recommendation to list
13 the particulate emissions from diesel fueled engines a
14 reasonable way to proceed?
15 DR. FROINES: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap. Good
16 morning, Members of the Board.
17 I would like to take a couple of minutes. I would
18 like to take a couple of minutes answering the question for
19 you.
20 First, I wanted to --
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We have got you using the light
22 there, Dr. Froines.
23 It happens to me too, so --
24 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: He's a Professor.
25 DR. FROINES: At the Board meeting a month ago, I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
13
1 reported on the findings of the SRP with respect to diesel
2 exhaust, and at that meeting I commented on two papers, two
3 scientific papers that had been reported after the SRP had
4 met, and I described them to you and described that they
5 showed an increased risk of lung cancer associated with
6 exposure to diesel exhaust.
7 Now, I just want to take a second to mention two
8 other papers for the record that have actually been published
9 since the last Board meeting.
10 One is a paper entitled, "Occupational Exposure to
11 Gasoline, Diesel and Propane Engine Emissions and Risk of
12 Lung Cancer," and the second paper is entitled, "Enhancement
13 of Allergic Inflammation by the Interaction Between Diesel
14 Particles and the Immune System."
15 Without taking time to quote from them, I will just
16 simply say that both papers demonstrate a positive
17 relationship between adverse health consequences and exposure
18 to diesel exhaust.
19 So, they represent, I think, the importance of
20 continuing research, and they add to the consistency of
21 results that we have had on these issues indicating that
22 there are health problems in humans associated with exposure
23 to diesel exhaust.
24 I begin my remarks by commenting on those papers,
25 because as the person representing the Scientific Review
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
14
1 Panel, I really do want to always emphasize and reemphasize
2 the conclusions of the Scientific Review Panel on the health
3 effects of a particular toxic air contaminant.
4 I want you to in a sense realize that our focus
5 will always be on the science. The issue of diesel exhaust
6 has been very controversial. Everybody in the room knows
7 that.
8 The Legislature has been involved, as Genevieve
9 just said, and there has been a considerable discussion, at
10 times relatively heated.
11 I want to emphasize one important point here, and
12 that is the SRP will always attempt to bring to this Board
13 our best evaluation of the scientific issues associated with
14 a proposed toxic air contaminant.
15 We will always try to be the window into which the
16 Board can view the scientific issues separate from other
17 matters of concern.
18 We will always do our very best to present
19 objective scientific information to you.
20 To turn to the Chair's question, I want to be quite
21 emphatic, if I did not believe the approach that was proposed
22 by staff before you today was not adequate scientifically, I
23 would be the first to say so.
24 I would be the first to tell you that this doesn't
25 work if I thought it didn't work as a matter of science.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
15
1 This process has gone on too long, and there have
2 been such important issues at stake that I would be remiss if
3 I accepted changes that would compromise the science and,
4 therefore, the public health.
5 I won't do that now, and I won't do it ever.
6 I support, and I strongly support the approach
7 proposed by staff and believe it will serve us well as they
8 move forward to address issues of risk exposure, health,
9 technology, fuels and other diesel related matters.
10 I think this approach is very good. I think the
11 approach provides an incentive for industry, environmental
12 groups and government to move forward to address the control
13 of diesel related exposures.
14 I believe the participants in the discussions that
15 led to this approach should be congratulated for putting
16 together an approach which will serve us well in the future.
17 I want to make a couple of comments for the record
18 on the approach. I think it is extremely important that the
19 Resolution acknowledges, and I quote, "Whereas the scientific
20 evidence indicates particulate matter and organic vapor phase
21 emissions are the most likely contributors to adverse health
22 effects from diesel exhaust," I think this statement is
23 important because we need to specifically recognize that
24 there may be contributions from both gases, vapors and
25 particulate matter in the health effects associated with
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
16
1 diesel exhaust.
2 That doesn't in any way detract from the approach
3 suggested here, but it's important to recognize that health
4 effects may occur as a result in combination of vapor and
5 particulate and that we are dealing with a multi-causal
6 phenomena.
7 I think it would be useful in the future, over
8 time, for the Board, for the staff to identify vapor phase
9 components that haven't been identified as TACs to move
10 forward to identify them as TACs, and as we think would be
11 appropriate and necessary to improve our understanding of the
12 causality associated with diesel exhaust emissions.
13 I now think that doing lots more epidemiologic
14 studies may or may not be in the best interest of the science
15 associated with this particular issue.
16 I now think that mechanistic studies to better
17 identify causal factors might actually be better and have
18 more short-term benefits.
19 As we look forward to research in the future, I
20 think we need to look at the issues and ask ourselves, what
21 is the best kind of research that needs to be done, and I
22 think mechanistic research might be of particular value.
23 In addition to organic vapors and particulate
24 matter, I think that we shouldn't forget the potential role
25 of criteria pollutants, nitrogen oxides, ozone, what have
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
17
1 you.
2 The Board clearly has a way to deal with those risk
3 related issues, although I think that that shouldn't be lost
4 as we look at this overall issue, because we don't know how
5 chemicals interact to produce some of the effects that may be
6 occurring.
7 So, finally, I want to say once again that I
8 support this Resolution, and I believe that it will serve us
9 well in the future, and I congratulate everybody who
10 participated in developing it.
11 Thank you, very much.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Dr. Froines. I
13 appreciate those views, also the comments about research.
14 We'll come back to that as we conclude on this
15 Item.
16 Before -- again, I will forestall questions just
17 for a few more minutes.
18 Dr. Denton, Director of OEHHA, I appreciated your
19 involvement as a partner, not only with the SRP but with our
20 team here.
21 Joan, how do you view the staff's modified
22 recommendation to list the particulate matter portion of
23 diesel exhaust?
24 That's the primary question of the day.
25 DR. DENTON: Mr. Chair, Members of the Board, for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
18
1 the record, I just want to assure you, Members of the Board,
2 that identifying the particular component of diesel exhaust
3 is fully consistent with OEHHA's health risk assessment
4 developed over the last nine years.
5 So, John, the short answer is, yes.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Very good.
7 Mr. Schoning, would you please address the process
8 prior to today by which this Item came before us and share
9 any concerns or other comments that you may have with the
10 Board at this juncture.
11 MR. SCHONING: Yes, Mr.Chairman and Members.
12 Last month, we shared with you in some detail the
13 record of this decade-long Item and process by which it came
14 before you.
15 Today, I think it's prudent simply to be brief and
16 to commend all of the peacemaker stakeholders involved in
17 bringing this proposal to you, and particularly a very hard
18 working ARB staff who put in many hours into this issue along
19 with all of the stakeholders.
20 We are very pleased with the process.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good.
22 Thank you, Jim. Okay.
23 Now, did any of the Board Members have any
24 questions before we get into the witnesses?
25 We have eight witnesses that have signed up, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
19
1 they are a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including
2 industry, environmental community and a regulatory agency or
3 two.
4 Would your preference be to hear from them?
5 Dr. Friedman.
6 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I just want to add my
7 congratulations.
8 I found inspiriting the discourse between the
9 industry, environmentalists and the staff in forging, what I
10 think, is a major advance.
11 With respect to the particulate issue, I think that
12 it was the wisdom of the Scientific Review Panel in the first
13 place to give us data normalized for particulates from the
14 very beginning, and this, in fact, is simply a recognized
15 extension of that principle, so I think, you know, I think
16 it's exactly the right way to go about doing business.
17 Further, it's the really small particulates that I
18 am concerned about with respect to the cancer risk, because
19 they hang around.
20 If there are molecules attached to them that are
21 toxic, and I think that very likely, that is the key focus of
22 interest.
23 It also affords, as John said a moment ago,
24 opportunities for research that won't take 35 to 40 years
25 before an answer is forthcoming.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
20
1 The whole issue of creating a risk management
2 working group is very sound. It is always appropriate to
3 serially evaluate a scientific basis of decisions.
4 This is entirely in keeping with our responsibility
5 and the charge to the Board.
6 So, I just wanted to add my own congratulations,
7 and I think it is a really good step forward.
8 Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Dr. Friedman.
10 Supervisor Roberts.
11 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I want to make sure I am
12 speaking in the microphone and not the light here.
13 John, just as one of the lay people here, not part
14 of the scientific community, when we first visited this we
15 really talked about this mix, this diesel exhaust as it was a
16 soup, and now we are talking about certain things in that
17 soup, the meatballs and the vegetables that have been
18 identified as being the problems, I guess.
19 The thought occurred to me as the difference in
20 approach is that in one case we were talking about the whole
21 as opposed to all these pieces, and as I remember the earlier
22 presentation, the breakdown of pieces is pretty complex.
23 Are we in a position -- do we feel comfortable that
24 we are -- that we have the proper research to identify all of
25 those pieces?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
21
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, Dr. Froines, I will let
2 you, and perhaps Genevieve, take a stab at responding, but
3 maybe I would lead with this.
4 The most important, the meatballs and the, what did
5 you say, vegetable, I guess, are really incorporated in the
6 particle element, and that is what we know, we have more
7 certainty about, and that's why the emphasis, where we are
8 hearing the support, certainly from those that we have heard
9 from thus far, and hopefully we will hear some feeling from
10 those that are set to testify, is that we are on the right
11 course for dealing with what we know most about.
12 Genevieve, you and Dr. Froines, perhaps, would like
13 to answer that better.
14 MS. SHIROMA: Yes.
15 Supervisor Roberts, yes, we are confident that we
16 are tackling the right actors, the particulate emissions, the
17 vapor organics.
18 Diesel exhaust has water vapor, carbon dioxide and
19 so forth. We know enough to have said even in the staff
20 report that we would be focusing all the particulate
21 emissions and the vapor organics.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Dr. Froines.
23 DR. FROINES: Am I on?
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You are on.
25 DR. FROINES: I think there are a couple of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
22
1 issues, and I'll be very brief, Bill Friedman said that it's
2 the academics that go on and on, and judging from how short
3 Joan was, I fall into that trap.
4 I just want to say that one of the important
5 features is that we don't know what causes lung cancer from
6 tobacco smoke.
7 We know that particulates play an important role,
8 and vapors play an important role, and we have moved ahead in
9 this society to address tobacco smoke and environmental
10 tobacco smoke, and we haven't said, we need to know what each
11 individual one of those thousands of chemicals contribute
12 before we can do something about tobacco smoke.
13 I think diesel exhaust is exactly the same issue.
14 We don't know what each chemical within diesel exhaust
15 contributes, and they probably interact.
16 They probably are all contributing, or a number of
17 compounds are contributing, and it's going to be hard to sort
18 out which compounds are contributing, which is why the
19 Polanca bill wanted to take us out to too fine a level of
20 detail.
21 I think that what we are dealing with now in terms
22 of addressing the issue of particulate is precisely the
23 approach to take, and I think over time to sort out some of
24 the issues about vapor and particles will be valuable, and so
25 I think the answer to the question is, yes, we are moving in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
23
1 the right direction, and I would only argue that we have to
2 stay away from trying to subdivide these thousands of
3 chemicals.
4 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That's precisely the
5 question that I was asking.
6 I wanted to make sure we weren't going down to too
7 far a level.
8 DR. FROINES: I would think that that would not be
9 in the best public health interest.
10 I think, of course, we always want to know more
11 about the importance of some of those compounds and learn
12 more about that.
13 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That was exactly the
14 question.
15 DR. FROINES: I think that research is necessary
16 to do that in the way that in the new PM 2.5 standard, we
17 want to learn more about what causes the morbidity and
18 mortality, but I think we also want to avoid sort of becoming
19 paralyzed by saying, we need to know the contribution from
20 every chemical before we can move forward.
21 I think that would be a mistake, and I think this
22 is the kind of compromise that allows us to move forward and
23 yet acknowledges that there are differences.
24 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So, the next step would have
25 been getting down to something smaller than the meatball, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
24
1 we haven't done that yet?
2 DR. FROINES: We don't want to do that.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Culinary examples do work on
4 occasion.
5 Thank you, Ron.
6 Now, if there aren't any other pressing questions,
7 why don't we go on to the witness list, if that's okay.
8 So, I will ask those who have signed up, I'll just
9 run down the list in the order that I was given them.
10 Kelly Jensen, from the California Chamber, Jeff
11 Sickenger, from WSPA, Chung Lui, from South Coast, Bonnie
12 Holmes-Gen, from Sierra Club, Jed Mandel, from EMA, Allen
13 Schaffer, from American Trucking Association, Todd Campbell,
14 from the Coalition for Clean Air and Janet Hathaway, if I
15 could get you to kind of cue up.
16 Bruce, if you would wave to them and let them know
17 they can have a seat up front. Stand up, Bruce, maybe they
18 can see you better.
19 If you come towards Bruce, he will give up his
20 seat, voluntarily, and we will get you up front so we can cue
21 right up.
22 Good morning, Kelly.
23 MR. JENSEN: Good morning, Chairman Dunlap, and
24 Members of the Board. Kelly Jensen, on behalf of the
25 California Chamber of Commerce, and also representing the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
25
1 Californian's for a Sound Fuel Strategy, which is a
2 broad-based coalition compromised with 25 business
3 organizations and labor organizations throughout the State.
4 We are very supportive of the changes that have
5 been made to the Resolution. We believe that it allows the
6 good parts to move forward, that would be the risk assessment
7 and the risk management phase, to move forward, but provides
8 some insulation to industry from litigation.
9 We believe that this needs to be regulated in the
10 right place at the local air districts and here at the State
11 Board, and not by individual courts up and down the State,
12 which could cripple commerce and clearly impact movement of
13 goods throughout the State.
14 So we thank you very much for those changes. We do
15 thank the Board staff. They had a very open door policy with
16 our Coalition and the Chamber, and it was a pleasure working
17 with all of you.
18 Thank you, very much.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Jensen.
20 I appreciate that.
21 Any questions for the witness?
22 Mr. Sickenger, from WSPA.
23 Good morning, Jeff.
24 MR. SICKENGER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board.
25 My name is Jeff Sickenger, and I am representing the Western
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
26
1 States Petroleum Association.
2 I would like to begin by briefly underscoring the
3 Chamber's comments. In addition to a number of technical
4 issues WSPA has raised in the past with staff and before the
5 Board, our key concerns were directed of the listing of whole
6 diesel exhaust and the indirect effect, as Kelly articulated,
7 that the listing and the acceptance of the various technical
8 documents that are a part of the proceedings potentially
9 could have on litigation, permitting and on other
10 environmental programs.
11 We believe that the Resolution that you have before
12 you today considers these concerns and addresses them in a
13 very fair and reasonable way, and we appreciate being part of
14 the process to bring that before you.
15 We are prepared to commit resources, to working
16 with staff and with the Board over the next several months to
17 help better characterize the emissions and health impacts
18 associated with use of today's fuels and engine technologies.
19 In that regard, we urge ARB to proceed with the
20 next generation of the research work and to consider
21 participating in some research that we understand is being
22 planned by Dr. Joe Motterly at the Lovelace Institute along
23 the same lines, and we also commit to work with you in the
24 risk management phase of the process that will result from
25 this listing, and to work with staff and the districts,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
27
1 again, to help develop guidelines that will be used by the
2 districts, and with permit riders specifically, to deal with
3 issues related to diesel exhaust exposures.
4 Thanks again for the opportunity again to address
5 you this morning.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I also want to acknowledge, for
7 those that maybe haven't been tracking the issue as closely
8 as other's might, WSPA has been a partner working with this
9 Board in the fuels area in making cleaner and better fuels,
10 and we need that to continue, certainly in the risk
11 management phase, so I want to acknowledge that.
12 Thank you, Chuck.
13 Any questions of the witness?
14 Very good. Chung Lui, from South Coast.
15 Chung, it is my understanding that you have some
16 written testimony, which we have up here.
17 DR. LUI: I'll be brief. Mr. Chairman, Members of
18 the Board, good morning.
19 For the record, my name is Chung Lui. I am
20 Assistant Executive Officer with the South Coast Air Quality
21 Management District.
22 I'm here to convey our Agency's position on the
23 issue of listing diesel related emission as a toxic air
24 contaminant.
25 Our Governing Board believes firmly that if the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
28
1 scientific data demonstrates that diesel, whether it is
2 exhaust, or fuel, or particulates, meets the criteria of a
3 toxic air contaminant, that the Air Resources Board should
4 make such a designation.
5 In addition, our Governing Board for many years has
6 expressed concerns regarding both the toxic and the criteria
7 pollutant effects of diesel related emissions.
8 Further, our Board has adopted many policy
9 statements calling for the control of pollutant emissions
10 from diesel fuel use.
11 Therefore, in evaluating the extent of risk posed
12 by diesel related emissions, one has to consider not only the
13 cancer risk, but also the noncancer effects and additional
14 mortality risks associated with diesel in any particulate
15 pollution levels.
16 In closing, the South Coast AQMD is supportive of
17 ARB's effort to formally list diesel related emissions as a
18 toxic air contaminant.
19 I should add also that the District is looking
20 forward to working with ARB and others on the development of
21 the risk management guidelines.
22 I also congratulate the ARB staff's efforts on
23 this.
24 Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Dr. Lui.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
29
1 Any questions of the witness?
2 Thank you. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, from Sierra Club,
3 followed by Jed Mandel and Allen Schaffer.
4 Good morning, Bonnie.
5 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good morning. Bonnie Holmes-Gen,
6 with Sierra Club California.
7 We are here also today to strongly urge you to
8 complete this lengthy nine-year process and to move ahead and
9 to list diesel emissions as a toxic air contaminant.
10 We believe that taking this action and formally
11 recognize the scientific findings is an important step right
12 now to move us ahead to reducing public exposure to diesel
13 exhaust.
14 We want to say that we believe this is an action
15 that is not just significant on the State level, but this is
16 a nationally historic decision.
17 We hope that it will precipitate a change in focus
18 at the national level also for research and regulatory
19 controls now that we know that diesel exhaust is not just a
20 source and criteria of pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide is,
21 and fine particulates.
22 Now we know that diesel is also a toxic air
23 contaminant and causes significant lung damage, including
24 cancer.
25 The findings today should spur us to aggressively
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
30
1 pursue cleaner technologies and alternative fuels at the
2 State and national levels.
3 We plan to be a part of this effort. We need to
4 pursue cleaner diesel fuel on a Federal level as a first
5 step.
6 We are obviously all concerned about the trucks
7 that come in and out of California, and they are operating on
8 fuels from out of State, and we need to have a single
9 national fuel that is a cleaner fuel.
10 We hope that this action today by the Air Board
11 will change the tunnel vision of agencies like the Department
12 of Energy, which, from our perspective, has been wrongly
13 focused on diesel as a solution to global warming and energy
14 efficiency.
15 We need to change the focus of the Department of
16 Energy to be focusing on alternative fuels not on diesel.
17 This is a beginning of a long process, and we, too,
18 plan to be part of that process to look at the range of
19 measures to reduce diesel pollution.
20 We believe that conversions to cleaner fuels,
21 cleaner alternative fuels, should be one of the measures and
22 guidelines, a key measure, and we are continuing to support
23 Legislation and proposals to provide incentives to truck
24 owners to help them convert to cleaner equipment and fuels,
25 and we believe that needs to be part of the solution.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
31
1 All of this discussion cannot occur until you
2 complete the listing process. We urge you to complete this
3 process to do your job to protect public health.
4 You know that the public is behind you. You know
5 that the science is behind you, and we urge to you to
6 complete the process and declare particulates from diesel
7 fueled engines a toxic air contaminant.
8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you.
9 I appreciate your role, too, Bonnie, in being
10 involved with working this out, too. So, that is important.
11 Any questions of Ms. Holmes?
12 All right. Very good.
13 Thank you.
14 Jed, good to see you.
15 We have your testimony here. It's well crafted.
16 I have had a chance to read it.
17 Anything you want to add to it?
18 MR. MANDEL: I was going to present it to you with
19 hand gestures.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. If you must.
21 MR. MANDEL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, nice to
22 see you again, and Members of the Board. I'm Jed Mandel,
23 speaking on behalf of the Engine Manufacturers Association.
24 Last month, the Board decided to defer action until
25 today on the proposal to list diesel exhaust as a TAC.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
32
1 The Board decided to keep the hearing record open,
2 and it directed the staff to consider not only the extensive
3 comments that were presented to the Board, but also the
4 testimony that was presented at the Senator Kopp's August
5 fourth Legislative hearing.
6 The additional month allowed the staff and other
7 interested parties an opportunity to further consider the
8 important issues that have been raised.
9 For example, we have expressed concern that a TAC
10 listing of whole diesel exhaust, a nonspecific,
11 unidentifiable, uncontrollable substance that has and will
12 always exist as a byproduct of diesel fueled engine
13 combustion, would not be good public policy.
14 Such a listing would provide no help in identifying
15 what specific constituent of diesel exhaust might cause
16 adverse health effects and would provide no guidance as to
17 what specific constituent of diesel exhaust, if any, should
18 be reduced to protect public health.
19 The staff has listened to those concerns, and we
20 appreciate their efforts. If the proposed listing on
21 particulate matter from a diesel fueled engine is a specific,
22 identifiable and controllable substance, indeed it already
23 has been highly regulated by this Board in the form of new
24 engine emission standards and diesel fuel specifications.
25 Any other potentially harmful substances discussed
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
33
1 in the OEHHA and SRP reports are organic compounds, which
2 have been and continue to be controlled and reduced by this
3 Board's regulation of hydrocarbon emissions.
4 The knowledge base on the health effects associated
5 with diesel fueled engines, indeed of all combustion sources,
6 continues to expand and develop.
7 The conclusions that can be drawn from that data
8 continue to be refined. We think that process must continue,
9 and as such, we really appreciate and applaud the staff's
10 recommendation to closely follow health studies with respect
11 to diesel fueled engines.
12 As we hope you appreciate, questions remain
13 unanswered and uncertainties still exist with respect to the
14 conclusions concerning health risk assessment.
15 The written comments regarding those uncertainties
16 remain part of this record. It is imperative to further
17 understand, refine and reassess the quantifications of such
18 health risks in response to new data.
19 Meanwhile, we are committed to working with you and
20 the staff to address what additional controls, if any, might
21 be warranted as a result of today's action by the Board.
22 For over 20 years, we have been corroborating with
23 ARB to reduce emissions from diesel fueled engines. We are
24 not about to stop now.
25 If you have any questions, I will be pleased to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
34
1 answer them.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. I appreciate that.
4 I also, again, want to acknowledge your role in
5 demystifying this process as it relates to the engine
6 technology and what is coming, and that has been very
7 important.
8 Any questions for Jed?
9 Very good. Thank you.
10 Allen Schaffer, American Trucking Association.
11 Allen, good of you to come out and join us.
12 MR. SCHAFFER: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman,
13 Members of the Board. I will be brief this morning.
14 I do not have a written statement. My name is
15 Allen Schaffer, and I am Vice President of Environmental and
16 Highway Policy of the American Trucking Association.
17 We represent trucking companies nationwide, around
18 35,000, all of which have some form of diesel equipment in
19 their operations.
20 I want to commend the Board and the staff of the
21 ARB for the important progress made here in the last 30 days.
22 We are very encouraged by the proposed Resolution
23 and the staff report. We want to thank you all for listening
24 to us and our concerns.
25 We think it validates the work and comments that we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
35
1 have made over the last few years, and it is a reasonable
2 compromise for us all, protecting public health and setting
3 an agenda for us to move forward and address what we believe
4 are the concerns of the citizens of California, and also to
5 allow diesel users to continue to meet the needs of the
6 economy of California.
7 We are also committed to working with you all in
8 the next phase of the process, the risk management phase, and
9 we are prepared to engage and address the issues about a
10 national fuel standard and to do more on our part to help
11 reduce in-use emissions, smoke emissions from trucks
12 nationwide.
13 Thank you, very much.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I can assure you we will be in
15 tough on that national fuel strategy, so we will work with
16 them on that.
17 MR. SCHAFFER: Undoubtedly.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you.
19 Any questions of Mr. Schaffer before he runs off?
20 All right. Very good.
21 Todd Campbell, from the Coalition for Clean Air,
22 Janet Hathaway, and a new witness, Stephanie Williams, from
23 CTA.
24 If I could get you to cue up, we will get you up
25 here.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
36
1 MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning, Chairman Dunlap,
2 Members of the Board, my name is Todd Campbell.
3 I represent the Coalition for Clean Air, not for
4 profit, dedicated to restoring healthful air to California.
5 We are here today to show our strong support for
6 this listing. The scientific evidence is clear.
7 After nine years of rigorous research and public
8 participation, and with similar findings from international
9 and national health organizations, it is time for California
10 to move ahead with this listing, and the Coalition looks
11 forward to working with the interested parties in the risk
12 reduction phase.
13 We agree with the Sierra Club that this is a very
14 historic decision, or it will be, and we urge this Board to
15 do the right thing for the public health of all of
16 Californians.
17 Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good.
19 Any questions for Mr. Campbell?
20 It appears that we will be seeing you from time to
21 time.
22 You were here, what, last month was your maiden
23 voyage with us, right?
24 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Welcome.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
37
1 Janet Hathaway, who knows the way to Sacramento
2 from the Bay Area.
3 MS. HATHAWAY: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board,
4 I'm Janet Hathaway -- excuse me, I'm an attorney with the
5 Natural Resources Defense Council.
6 I just want to take this moment to congratulate the
7 staff of ARB, who has worked so very diligently on this
8 issue, the OEHHA staff, and most particularly, the Scientific
9 Review Panel, which, I think, really is second to no
10 scientific body in terms of their rigor and their effort to
11 really ensure that health protection is primary here.
12 I just also want to thank the various participants
13 in discussions about trying to ensure that there is no
14 compromise of public health protection here, and at the same
15 time that the emphasis is placed where the science suggests
16 that it must be placed, on the vapor phase constituents and
17 particles from diesel.
18 I do think this is a truly historic moment for
19 California, and really, it will be looked at nationally and
20 internationally.
21 Making progress and reducing risk from diesel will
22 protect a large number of people, and I think that your
23 efforts on behalf of those folks really need to be applauded.
24 So, thank you very much, and I hope to work with
25 you on risk reduction measures.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
38
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you.
2 We have some water for you, Janet, after the fact.
3 Stephanie Williams, you are our final speaker on this Item.
4 MS. WILLIAMS: I thank the Board, and I tell you
5 that you we appreciate your recognizing our industry's
6 concerns.
7 We want to work together to move to get some of the
8 older vehicles off the road and start immediately with the
9 public health protection, and with the Coalition that will --
10 coming together on the science.
11 We think this is very positive and appreciate you
12 working on this.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you.
14 Is there any other, not that I'm looking for any
15 necessarily, is there anyone else that wishes to speak on
16 this Item?
17 Ms. Hutchens, has anyone seen you?
18 MS. HUTCHENS: No.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good.
20 What we will do then is we will conclude the public
21 testimony, and then, Dr. Friedman, I will come to you in just
22 a second.
23 We, staff, I know you received some mail. I have
24 gotten some myself.
25 Do you want to take a few minutes and go through
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
39
1 the written comments we received from them and summarize them
2 in a group, if you would.
3 MR. VENTURINI: Ms. Shiroma will do this very
4 briefly, Mr. Chairman.
5 MS. SHIROMA: Yes, thank you.
6 Twenty-five letters were received prior to the July
7 thirtieth hearing from stakeholders who did not give oral
8 testimony, and no new issues were raised in these letters.
9 Since July thirtieth, we received 23 letters and
10 numerous phone calls. Again, no new issues were raised.
11 Twenty-one of the letters were expressions of
12 support, and all of the phone calls were of support.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good.
14 So, we will, Mr. Scheible, before I go to Dr.
15 Friedman, is there anything that you wanted to add to this?
16 MR. SCHEIBLE: No.
17 It seems like there is a consensus of the staff,
18 and we recommend that you act to identify particulate
19 emissions from diesel fueled engines as a toxic air
20 contaminant.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good.
22 Dr. Friedman, thanks for your patience.
23 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I just wanted to move
24 approval of Resolution 98-35, which does exactly what
25 Mr. Scheible just mentioned, and also includes the notion of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
40
1 a working group, a management working group, to look at
2 health information and also do that stationary source risk
3 management guideline.
4 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Second.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Great, and there is a
6 second by Supervisor Roberts, but let's put that on hold for
7 just a moment.
8 Let me do a little bit of housekeeping here, or
9 Ms. Walsh is going to jump on me. We need to officially
10 close the record, and I'll do that now.
11 However, the record will be reopened when the
12 15-day notice of public availability is issued. Written or
13 oral comments received after this hearing date but before the
14 15-day notice is issued will not be accepted as part of the
15 official record on this Agenda Item.
16 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment
17 period, the public may submit written comments on the
18 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to
19 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation.
20 All right. Just as a remainder, again, to the
21 Board of our policy concerning ex parte communications, while
22 we may, of course, communicate off the record with outside
23 persons regarding Board rulemaking, we must disclose the
24 names of our contacts and the nature of the contents of the
25 discussion on the record.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
41
1 This requirement applies specifically to
2 communications which take place after notice of a Board
3 hearing has been published.
4 Are there any communications which need to be
5 disclosed?
6 I know that I have a few.
7 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Patrick, if I might, I
9 will come to you in just a moment.
10 I will start over here with Ron.
11 Ron, do you have any?
12 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: No, I don't.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Supervisor Patrick.
14 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes.
15 After the San Joaquin Valley Air District meeting,
16 I was double-teamed by Les Clark and Manny Cunia, as only Les
17 Clark and Manny Cunia can double team someone.
18 I don't see them here today, but I would certainly
19 say that to their face as well.
20 They brought some concerns to me. This was prior
21 to the discussion of some kind of a resolution, or compromise
22 on this issue. Their concerns were about the expansion of
23 the toxic hot spots area because of this, and also concern
24 about cancer clusters in the San Joaquin Valley that someone
25 could say was because of diesel fuel as opposed to some of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
42
1 the things that have been explored by EPA and also just
2 vulnerability of government in general, you know, school
3 districts and so forth, because of school buses, and so
4 forth, so that was the essence of their comments.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you.
6 Dr. Friedman.
7 Okay. Mr. Calhoun.
8 Mrs. Riordan.
9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes.
10 One person that I spoke to over the phone prior to
11 the July meeting, Gene Caluso, who heads Riverside Cement's
12 Environmental Department, spoke to me basically with nothing
13 other than what was in the testimony of the Trucking
14 Association, just questions and nothing that would be
15 different from any testimony that was held during that July
16 meeting.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right.
18 Mr. Parnell.
19 BOARD MEMBER PARNELL: Yes.
20 I was contacted by members of the Engine
21 Manufacturers Association, the California Chamber of
22 Commerce, the California Farm Bureau and WSPA.
23 The concerns were range of risk and the general
24 tone of the debate as it has been aired, last hearing, not
25 this hearing.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
43
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you.
2 Ms. Rakow.
3 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: No contacts.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mark.
5 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: No.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. I have a few.
7 Now bear with me. There are more than a few.
8 I had a meeting with Jack Coffee, from Chevron, on
9 July second; Kelly Jensen, from California Chamber, on July
10 fourteenth; Bob Welp, on July fifteenth, of the California
11 Environmental Association; Ken Churchill, of UPS, on the
12 thirteenth of July; Joe Anderson, of CTA, on the fifteenth of
13 July; Michael Rush, of the Railroad Association, on the
14 fifteenth of July; Kirk Markwold, of California Environmental
15 Associates, on the same date; Mr. Caldera and Mr. Levenson,
16 of the U.S. Postal Service, on the twentieth of July; Paul
17 Curry and Alva Cooper, both of the State Sheriff's
18 Association, on the twenty-second of July; Jed Mandel, on the
19 twenty-eighth of July; Allen Zarenberg, on the twenty-ninth
20 of July; Dwayne Morbick, Anne Farmer, Clark Rigley of Costco,
21 on the thirteenth of August; Candice Trigger, of UPS, on the
22 twentieth of August; Kent Stoddard, Waste Management, on the
23 twentieth of August; Susan Allen, of CNF, on the twentieth of
24 August; Karen Rasmussen, of Ryder, in that same period; Jean
25 Urban, of Nielsen Merksmer, also on the twentieth of August;
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
44
1 all dealing with the issue, as Mr. Parnell has cited, that
2 the breadth of the identification, also industry concerns.
3 I believe also there is another with Tim
4 Carmichael, of the Coalition for Clean Air, I believe on the
5 thirtieth of July.
6 Okay. With that, we have, let me say a word or two,
7 first of all, we have heard it said several times that this
8 discussion today, in how far we have come from last month to
9 this month has been kind of, I believe, nothing short of
10 remarkable.
11 The stakeholders have worked together. Dr.
12 Froines, his colleagues at the SRP also played a very
13 important role in listening and discussing some of these
14 issues.
15 Our staff, Mike Kenny, who is not with us, who is
16 on a vacation, a well-deserved vacation, who did an awful
17 lot, the stakeholders, the environmental community, in
18 particular, I think, took a very reasoned approach in
19 discussing this, and this represents, I think, what's best
20 about working in government, when it comes together, and
21 people feel that they got a chance to be heard and to touch
22 this issue, and that's happened today.
23 It is our job to, obviously, make sense of all of
24 the information that we received on this, and I think we have
25 done that here, but it has not just been this Board.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
45
1 It's been those that have participated. So, I want
2 to commend everybody that has been involved.
3 Also, there have been a few trade associations. We
4 heard from Mr. Jensen, from the California Chamber today,
5 they got involved and tried to get their arms around some of
6 the advocacy that has gone on and that made an important
7 difference, and I wanted to acknowledge that.
8 There are very effective ways for trade
9 associations to tackle issues, and I think if they can do it
10 in a coordinated fashion and speak as best they can with one
11 voice, it can really make a difference, and I want to
12 certainly recognize that.
13 So, with that, I would share Dr. Friedman and
14 Supervisor Roberts' recommendation that we accept the
15 modified staff proposal as it stands before us to identify
16 particulate emissions from diesel fueled engines as a toxic
17 air contaminant, and then initiate the risk assessment phase.
18 So, we have a motion to adopt the Resolution before
19 us.
20 Is there any discussion further that we need to
21 have on it?
22 Yes. Ms. Rakow.
23 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: One quick comment. One of the
24 speakers used the word, compromise, and I don't look on this
25 as a compromise at all.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
46
1 I think it is a very rationale solution to put the
2 public health interest of the State of California into effect
3 immediately, so that the risk management process can start
4 right away instead of years of bickering and fighting over
5 the issue in the future.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah. Thank you.
7 Mr. Calhoun.
8 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Mr. Chairman, I intend to
9 support the staff recommendation.
10 One of the reasons why I say that is because of the
11 fact that the initial staff recommendation of designating the
12 whole diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant was very
13 troubling to me.
14 Prior to this time, I think every proposal that
15 came from the staff for designation of a compound as a toxic
16 air contaminant was very specific.
17 I could not sleep at night thinking about
18 designating all of the diesel exhaust as a toxic air
19 contaminant.
20 Now, having said that, I have attended some of the
21 hearings where all of the technical discussions were held
22 regarding diesel exhaust, and, in fact, everyone in this room
23 has probably heard something about diesel exhaust, that it is
24 toxic in our lifetime, but what the staff has recommended
25 today is more in keeping with what I think should be done.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
47
1 In addition to that, the Engine Manufacturers
2 Association has mentioned, Jed Mandel mentioned, in fact,
3 that there are controls already in place now, and you will
4 see more of these in the future, and so they are already
5 addressing the problem.
6 So, as I said, I want to support the staff's
7 recommendation.
8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Calhoun.
9 Okay. It is very fitting that we had Dr. Friedman
10 make that motion to adopt that Resolution 98-35, being that
11 he has been very involved with this issue, looking very
12 closely at the science, and so I am pleased that he made the
13 motion.
14 We have a second from Supervisor Roberts.
15 Any further discussion?
16 Okay. If not, we will proceed with a voice vote.
17 All those in favor of approving Resolution 98-35,
18 identifying the particulate portion of diesel exhaust as a
19 toxic air contaminant, please say aye.
20 Any opposed?
21 Very good. The motion carries unanimously.
22 Thank you. All right.
23 We will allow for turmoil in the hearing room
24 while people change places.
25 All right. We will allow for a little bit of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
48
1 turmoil in the hearing room while people change places.
2 We will ask the staff involved with the next Item
3 to please come forward and take their spots. I need quiet in
4 the hearing room.
5 There is cause for a lot of celebration, but if you
6 could do it in the hallway, we will continue with the next
7 Item.
8 The next Item on the Agenda is 98-9-1, a Public
9 Meeting to Consider Approval of the Triennial Progress Report
10 and Plan Revisions under the California Clean Air Act.
11 This Item is the consideration of the approval of
12 the triennial progress reports and plan revisions submitted
13 by the local air districts.
14 Although much of what we do as a Board is driven by
15 the Federal Clean Air Act, it is important to remember that
16 the Board has responsibilities under the Act, as well,
17 including the review and approval of district plans and plan
18 updates.
19 Earlier this year, the Board considered the South
20 Coast Triennial Plan Revision and Progress Report. Today we
21 will consider the triennial updates submitted by 17 other
22 districts.
23 Please, if I could have some quiet.
24 At this point, I would like to ask Ms. Terry to
25 introduce this Item.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
49
1 Lynn, the time is yours.
2 MS. TERRY: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap.
3 Air quality is an important exercise that
4 identifies the strategies needed to ensure steady progress
5 towards attainment of health based air quality standards.
6 The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and
7 the 1988 California Clean Air Act lay the foundation for our
8 current air quality planning efforts in California.
9 In most cases, the fundamental planning
10 requirements of the two Acts are aligned. The districts have
11 a single plan that addresses both requirements.
12 However, one difference is that the California
13 requirement is that districts review their plan every three
14 years.
15 The most recent of these triennial updates were due
16 at the end of 1997.
17 Another difference between the planning
18 requirements of the two Acts is the annual emission reduction
19 requirement.
20 The Federal Act requires a three percent per year
21 reduction in VOC, while the California Act requires a five
22 percent per year reduction in all nonattainment pollutants or
23 their precursors.
24 If the five percent reduction is not achievable,
25 then every feasible measure must be implemented.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
50
1 When the local districts plans were first approved
2 by the Board in 1992, these approvals were based on the
3 criteria of every feasible measure for the purposes of
4 meeting the Act's progress requirement.
5 Thus, the emphasis of staff's review has been
6 whether or not the local plans continue to meet the every
7 feasible measure criteria in this planning cycle.
8 Seventeen districts submitted Triennial Progress
9 Reports and Plan Revisions. The San Joaquin Valley District
10 is in a process of preparing their Triennial Progress Report
11 and Plan Revision, and you will have an opportunity to
12 consider that update at a future Board hearing.
13 I will now ask Ms. Peggy Taricco, of the Office of
14 Air Quality and Transportation Planning, to begin the staff
15 presentation.
16 MS. TARICCO: In our presentation today, we will
17 provide you with an overview of the air quality planning, how
18 we have worked to integrate the Federal and State planning
19 processes, as well as the requirement for triennial reports
20 that are in the California Clean Air Act that have brought us
21 here today.
22 This will be followed by a discussion on our
23 evaluation of the triennial reports and our recommendations
24 for Board action.
25 Air quality plans identify the control strategies
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
51
1 that are implemented to continue progress towards meeting the
2 health based air quality standards.
3 They are based on the best data available,
4 including monitoring data, emissions inventory and air
5 quality models.
6 Plans also address all the diverse emission sources
7 in a given area and are necessarily dynamic.
8 Air quality planners must periodically update plans
9 to reflect new information and continually be on the look-out
10 for new strategies and new technologies that can be woven
11 into the plans to continue clean air progress.
12 Finally, plans must meet the State and Federal
13 statutory requirements of the 1988 California Clean Air Act,
14 and the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act.
15 These two Acts lay the foundation for our current
16 planning efforts. The California Clean Air Act requires
17 districts to develop plans to attain the State Ambient Air
18 Quality Standards.
19 It also requires that these plans demonstrate
20 annual emission reductions of at least five percent for each
21 nonattainment pollutant, or commit to adopt every feasible
22 measure.
23 Districts are also required to submit triennial
24 progress reports and any plan revisions to the ARB.
25 As Ms. Terry mentioned, the initial California
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
52
1 Clean Air Act plans were prepared in 1991. This was a
2 significant undertaking and identified the control strategies
3 that would be implemented to meet progress towards meeting
4 the State Ambient Air Quality Standards.
5 These plans were also designed to meet the
6 fundamental performance requirement to achieve a five percent
7 annual reduction in emissions of each nonattainment
8 pollutant, or its precursors.
9 The 1990 amendments to the Federal Act were the
10 primary driving force for the 1994 planning cycle, which
11 resulted in the State Implementation Plan for Ozone, or the
12 SIP.
13 While there are some differences in requirements
14 under the State and Federal plans for the areas that were
15 subject to both the State and Federal planning requirements,
16 the 1991 California Act plans formed the foundation for the
17 SIP and, with some modifications, were integrated with the
18 1994 Federal plans.
19 The 1994 planning event was an important
20 undertaking as the districts, the ARB and other responsible
21 agencies worked together to revamp and revise the control
22 strategy to reflect the best data available and also
23 identified the measures that would bring these areas into
24 attainment with the Federal standards and well on their way
25 to meeting the State standards.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
53
1 The most recent milestone was the preparation of
2 the 1997 triennial reports and plan revisions. The key
3 requirement related to the 1997 triennial reports and
4 revisions relates to the every feasible measure criteria of
5 the California Clean Air Act.
6 As I mentioned a moment ago, the Act allows for the
7 inclusion of every feasible measure as an alternative
8 approach when the five percent annual reduction cannot be
9 achieved.
10 In 1991, when the first plans were prepared, each
11 district plan committed to the adoption of every feasible
12 measure as no district was able to demonstrate the five
13 percent reduction.
14 The determination of feasibility takes into account
15 technology and cost effectiveness. Because technology
16 continues to advance, it's important to reassess the
17 feasibility criterion as newer technologies emerge.
18 District specific factors, such as transport, are
19 also considered to ensure that the districts strategies
20 effectively address the local emissions contribution.
21 To help the districts in their ongoing assessment
22 of technologies that offer emission reductions potential,
23 earlier this year we provided the districts with a resource
24 document that identified achievable performance standards and
25 emerging technologies for 25 stationary source categories.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
54
1 This resource document is a tool that they can use
2 then to help identify new emission reduction sources that can
3 be used to update their current and future plans to ensure
4 continued compliance with the every feasible measure mandate.
5 While in some cases the development of this
6 document coincided with the preparation of the 1997 triennial
7 reports and districts were able to update their plans based
8 on the information in the resource document, others, as we
9 will discuss later, have committed to reviewing the
10 information post submittal of their triennial reports to
11 determine if additional opportunities exist for them that
12 they can then incorporate into their rulemaking activities.
13 The next requirement we want to review pertains to
14 the triennial progress reports. The California Clean Air Act
15 requires triennial progress reports and plan reviews to
16 determine if plan revisions are necessary.
17 The first of these reports were due in 1994 and
18 coincided with the 1994 Ozone SIP. The second reports, which
19 are the subject of the Board Item today, were due in 1997.
20 The triennial reports include information on air
21 quality improvement and expected and revised emission
22 reductions for each district measure that was scheduled for
23 adoption in the preceding three-year period.
24 In addition to the progress reports, a triennial
25 plan review was also required. This process provides an
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
55
1 opportunity to incorporate new data, take advantage of new
2 technologies and revise the control strategy if necessary.
3 There are 21 areas that are required to submit
4 triennial reports. Eighteen districts have submitted their
5 updates, as shown here on this slide.
6 The South Coast plan update was considered by the
7 Board last January and was conditionally approved at that
8 time.
9 Today you are considering the 17 other triennial
10 reports.
11 Before we go on, I would also like to mention that
12 the triennial reports submitted by the Glen and El Dorado
13 districts were draft and will be considered for adoption by
14 their respective boards in the near future.
15 According to the District staff, however, they do
16 not expect the draft versions to change substantially prior
17 to their board's consideration.
18 Not all the districts were able to complete the
19 triennial reporting requirements in time for today's Board
20 hearing.
21 These were Santa Barbara, San Joaquin and Imperial
22 Districts. As you may know, the Santa Barbara County Air
23 Pollution Control District was recently bumped up by the U.S.
24 EPA from moderate to serious under the Federal Act, and as a
25 result, the District's staff are following an expedited plan
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
56
1 development schedule to enable them to submit the required
2 SIP revision later this year.
3 They have informed us that they will also be
4 meeting the California triennial reporting requirements at
5 that time as well.
6 The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
7 Control District was also not able to complete the triennial
8 report in time for today's Board hearing. However, they are
9 currently preparing a draft triennial progress report and
10 plan to share that draft at public workshops later this
11 summer in the Valley.
12 Last, the Imperial County Air Pollution Control
13 District has not submitted an update to the 1991 Imperial
14 County Air Quality Attainment Plan.
15 Over the past several years, the District's
16 planning resources have been focused on the Federal PM 10
17 planning requirements, and in addition, the District has been
18 working closely with the ARB, U.S. EPA and Mexico to develop
19 the technical tools that will enable them to prepare a
20 regional plan that would address the international transport
21 issue.
22 In our evaluation, we focused on reviewing how the
23 districts progressed over the past three years. We reviewed
24 district rulemaking for 1995 to 1997 and compared the
25 rulemaking and emission reductions to those in the plan.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
57
1 If deficiencies were noted, we looked to see if the
2 district committed to correcting that deficiency.
3 What we found was that progress in fulfilling the
4 rulemaking commitments in the plans varied. Some districts
5 have implemented their plans on schedule, while in other
6 cases, many districts were not able to adopt all the rules
7 scheduled in the 1995 to 1997 planning cycle due to resource
8 constraints, unexpected lengthy rule adoption processes, and
9 the like.
10 For the districts that did not adopt the rules as
11 planned, the law requires that these deficiencies be
12 corrected in the next planning cycle.
13 In the 1997 plan revisions, the districts that were
14 in this situation addressed this requirement by updating the
15 rulemaking schedules to reflect their commitment to adopt the
16 necessary rules in the current planning cycle from 1998 to
17 the year 2000.
18 In assessing the adequacy of the districts
19 rulemaking commitments, we focused on the Act's every
20 feasible measure requirement.
21 As I alluded to earlier, this assessment took into
22 account districts specific factors, including the severity of
23 the air quality problem, technical feasibility and the
24 contribution of emissions transported from other regions.
25 It is also important to mention that the factors
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
58
1 related to feasibility were considered in the context of the
2 current planning cycle.
3 The triennial review requirement reflects the
4 reality that what constitutes feasible is clearly time
5 dependent and will change as technology evolves and districts
6 regulatory programs move forward.
7 Based on our review then, we found that most
8 districts continue to meet the every feasible measure
9 criterion for the current planning cycle, and that several
10 districts have committed to look for additional emission
11 reductions as well.
12 Based on our review of the district control
13 strategies, we find that for four districts, Kern County,
14 Mojave Desert, Monterey County and San Luis Obispo, the
15 strategy that is being implemented addresses the local
16 contribution to the air pollution problem for this planning
17 cycle.
18 However, these districts do need to continue to
19 track emissions from local sources, maintain effective
20 programs for new sources and reevaluate in the next planning
21 cycle whether or not additional emission reductions from
22 local sources is necessary.
23 For the other districts, shown here on this slide,
24 additional emission reductions are necessary to continue
25 clean air progress and to address the local emissions under
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
59
1 district jurisdiction in this planning cycle.
2 These districts need to complete the rulemaking
3 scheduled for this planning cycle, and in some cases,
4 evaluate whether or not there are new emission reductions
5 from local sources that they can pursue.
6 San Diego and Bay Area have already completed an
7 evaluation process in late 1997 to identify new measures for
8 consideration.
9 As a result, the San Diego District was able to
10 incorporate new commitments into their plan prior to
11 submittal to the ARB, and the Bay Area District has agreed to
12 add three measures to their rulemaking schedule.
13 For the broader Sacramento area and Ventura
14 Districts, we requested that they evaluate the information
15 from the resource document that I mentioned earlier, to
16 determine if additional emission reduction opportunities
17 exist that can then be incorporated into their rulemaking
18 schedules and to report back to us on which source categories
19 they are going to evaluate.
20 For the Northern Sacramento Valley, they need to
21 complete the rulemaking process for those measures that were
22 planned for adoption between 1995 and 1997 and not yet
23 adopted.
24 Now, air quality improvement, overall, California
25 is experiencing improved air quality. With regards to air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
60
1 quality improvement, the California Act specifies review of
2 air quality data over the preceding three years.
3 However, it is difficult to reach any conclusions
4 based on such a short timeframe. Generally, trends are
5 evaluated over several planning cycles, say 10 to 20 years,
6 to minimize the impact that uncontrollable factors, such as
7 meteorology, may have on ozone levels in a given single year.
8 While the air quality trend is positive, it is also
9 clear that additional controls are necessary to continue
10 progress and meet the State Ozone Standard.
11 One area, the San Joaquin Valley, is of particular
12 concern because air quality is not improving as it is in
13 other areas of the State.
14 Imperial County is also showing minimal progress,
15 primarily due to international emissions and transport.
16 Based on the review of the triennial reports from
17 the 12 districts shown here on this slide, we find that the
18 reports satisfy the California Clean Air Act requirements for
19 the Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision and are
20 recommending full approval under the California Clean Air Act
21 for these districts.
22 In the notice for this Item, you may recall that we
23 were proposing a conditional approval for the Bay Area.
24 However, we were recently able to come to agreement on the
25 three measures that were the basis for the earlier
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
61
1 conditional approval recommendation and are now able to
2 recommend full approval for the Bay Area.
3 For five districts, those in the broader Sacramento
4 area and Ventura, we are recommending conditional approval of
5 the Triennial Reports and Plan Revisions, and in each case,
6 the condition pertains to ensuring that that control strategy
7 continues to satisfy the every feasible measure requirement
8 of the Act.
9 In the case of Ventura, Sacramento and Yolo/Solano
10 Districts, the district staff have already reviewed the 25
11 stationary source categories in the resource document and
12 identified those that they will evaluate further.
13 So, the proposed condition for these districts
14 reflects their commitments and requires them to commit to a
15 schedule for consideration of new or revised rules that
16 reflect achievable performance standards for the district.
17 For the El Dorado and Placer Districts, the
18 proposed conditions requires the districts to conduct a
19 review of the 25 stationary source categories in the ARB
20 resource document provided earlier this year and identify
21 those that they will conduct further study on and then commit
22 to a schedule for consideration of new or revised rules.
23 We also recommend that the conditional approval be
24 converted to a full approval once the Executive Officer
25 determines that the conditions specified for each individual
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
62
1 district has been met.
2 For the draft plans that we reviewed, those from
3 El Dorado and the Glen Districts, there is an error there. I
4 apologize.
5 We recommend that the Board delegate the authority
6 to the Executive Officer to approve the final plans as
7 recommended by the staff, provided the final plans are not
8 substantially different than the draft plans.
9 In the case of these districts, the staff had
10 recommended conditional approval for El Dorado and full
11 approval for Glen County.
12 To sum up, we believe that the triennial reporting
13 requirements of the California Act are a useful check point
14 and provide us with an opportunity to asses how we are doing
15 and where we need to make adjustments in our plans.
16 Clearly, we have made significant progress towards
17 clean air, but we still need to be looking for additional
18 opportunities for emission reductions to continue that
19 progress.
20 Based on our review of the triennial reports
21 submitted, we are, therefore, recommending that 12 be granted
22 full approval and 5 conditional approvals.
23 That concludes our presentation today. We will be
24 happy to take any questions that you may have.
25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
63
1 Are there any questions?
2 Yes. Mr. Calhoun.
3 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: One, I guess I have two
4 questions.
5 One pertaining to the all feasible measures that's
6 published by EPA. Who decides what is feasible and what
7 isn't feasible?
8 MS. TARICCO: It is a district specific
9 determination, and each district needs to decide what
10 measures are going to be feasible for that district and take
11 into account many factors, as far as the technology, the
12 resources that they have, the environment.
13 We, the ARB has provided guidance on how to go
14 about that process, both in 1991, and then in the document
15 that you considered back in March, also has guidance on how
16 to determine what is going to be feasible.
17 MS. TERRY: I think, conceptually, the technical
18 assistance that ARB staff have provided or really focused on
19 two key elements of that feasibility, which is technological
20 feasibility and cost effectiveness.
21 I think the process that our staff goes through in
22 reviewing what technologies have been demonstrated, what
23 rules on the books throughout California and, in fact, other
24 states in some cases, form the baseline for that assessment.
25 So, we basically look at what has been done out
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
64
1 there and achieved, what new technologies are on the horizon,
2 so there are two elements in the resource document, what is
3 clearly demonstrated today, as well as what we envision,
4 perhaps in the next planning cycle.
5 So, again, it is an ongoing in terms of reviewing
6 the technology and the cost effectiveness.
7 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: My next question pertains to
8 conditional approval.
9 You recommended that we grant conditional approval
10 to several districts. How long will that condition last?
11 Three years from now will we be reviewing the
12 conditional approval?
13 What is the check in order to make sure that
14 something happens?
15 MS. TERRY: Well, I suggest that the check would be
16 for the Executive Officer to report back to the Board in
17 short order in terms of the progress that districts have made
18 in their evaluations.
19 The positive is that districts have sent us letters
20 outlining their commitment to review the resource document,
21 in the case of the broader Sacramento Air District, some of
22 them, for example, and so within the next couple of months,
23 we would expect them to complete that process.
24 Also, several of the districts have already
25 outlined a tentative rulemaking schedule for some additional
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
65
1 measures, and so, once those commitments go into the
2 rulemaking calendar, then in our view, we consider that to be
3 the condition being met, and we would recommend that the
4 Executive Officer convert the approval.
5 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Do you think it would be
6 appropriate to have the staff come back to the Board, or at
7 least something, to let us know that the conditional approval
8 that were granted have been, conditions have been removed, or
9 something?
10 MS. TERRY: Absolutely.
11 I think it is very important for the Board to be
12 updated on the progress that is being made, because after
13 all, that is the ultimate goal of the plan, is to see the
14 reductions achieved.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Patrick.
16 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Really, my questions are
17 more about the San Joaquin Valley plan that is not before us
18 today than anything else, and I'm concerned about the status
19 plan, and do you feel that we are truly on target for going
20 to public hearing late this summer, I mean, it is already
21 late this summer, and for adoption in the fall?
22 We have got a couple of people representing the
23 District, but I would like to hear what you folks have to say
24 about that.
25 The progress on the rule development on these 25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
66
1 stationary sources that we adopted plans for in March, and
2 also, just your response in general to concern about the lack
3 of progress in the San Joaquin Valley, and what is that going
4 to mean for the San Joaquin Valley when we move from serious
5 to severe next year?
6 MS. TERRY: Well, we will start with the status of
7 the District's effort to comply with the triennial progress
8 requirements.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Start with the third question.
10 MS. TERRY: Oh, you would rather start with the
11 third one?
12 Okay.
13 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I didn't mean to give you so
14 many, Lynn.
15 I mean, she's smart enough to remember them.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I just felt the press thing --
17 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: We will see how she answers
18 it, because I will be asked it, I'm sure, as well.
19 This is really important stuff, and I'm just real
20 concerned that we are not on target for doing what we need to
21 be doing.
22 MS. TERRY: Well, I think actually the three
23 questions are very closely linked, so I can manage them.
24 The District had sent us a letter outlining their
25 timeframe for doing the review of the 25 categories in our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
67
1 resource document.
2 So, we really appreciate that commitment on their
3 behalf. They have outlined, essentially close to a year to
4 do that process, the commitment is, I believe, by July of
5 1999, that would be complete.
6 That is a fair amount of time, but I think given,
7 you know, the concern about progress in the Valley, it is
8 better to take the time to do a very thorough job, and that
9 ARB staff, I think, really is -- needs to be involved in that
10 process.
11 It is a tough challenge in the Valley, so we are
12 committed to working through those issues with the technical
13 staff at the District to make sure that it is a very thorough
14 review of the existing sources that are out there.
15 That timing, I think, works in the sense of what
16 you pointed out, a possible planning process relative to the
17 Federal standard next year.
18 They are -- the attainment date and the current SIP
19 for the San Joaquin Valley is July of 1999. It is clear from
20 what has happened in the last few years in terms of air
21 quality that we are not going to get there.
22 I think this review process from the stationary
23 source side will compliment very nicely what ARB staff will
24 be doing to look at the impacts of our control programs that
25 are in the works, as we speak, and hopefully completed by end
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
68
1 of this year.
2 So, we will be looking at the State element, the
3 mobile sources, and include the stationary sources as well.
4 So, they are closely linked, I think, that
5 commitment to do the work in terms of the State standard is
6 the very same work that needs to be done in terms of
7 addressing the Federal issue.
8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Does that do it, Supervisor
9 Patrick?
10 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes, it does.
11 Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Friedman.
13 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Well, I just want to
14 revisit Joe Calhoun's question and your response.
15 We are not grandfathering, I hope, a sort of plan
16 that forever delays by districts, at least I thought that you
17 thought that we had enough checks and balances and reviews
18 and so forth, that this won't be a perennial kind of an
19 issue, so --
20 MS. TERRY: Exactly, and that is a very important
21 point, that this finding is a three-year window.
22 Every three years we look at what's feasible, and
23 we also at the same time are looking at what we expect to be
24 feasible, perhaps, in the next three-year window.
25 In the case of the Sacramento region, they had a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
69
1 very aggressive regulatory agenda in the 1994 SIP, and they
2 are making good progress.
3 What we want to see is for them to complete that
4 rulemaking, as a first step, and then what we have really
5 done with this conditional approval is, say, even since 1994,
6 we think that there things that maybe they can add to their
7 rulemaking calendar, so it is continuing to press the
8 envelope on an at least every three-year basis.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. We have one witness.
10 Mark, I will let you introduce the witness.
11 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Before Ellen comes up,
12 there are two issues in regards to the Bay Area submittal,
13 one, is from WSPA, that was submitted, an oral document, a
14 written document, I should say, and this is in regards to our
15 NOx controls.
16 In the Bay Area they are contesting that legally,
17 and Kathleen can answer any legal questions, but Kathleen,
18 Mike, and I know John has had some conversations. I was
19 designated by the Bay Area Board to try to work on an
20 alternative plan with WSPA.
21 They have submitted that and run it by the
22 Chairman, and Kathleen and Mike have seen it, but in the
23 meantime they have already gone and had a hearing date in
24 court, and we are expected to hear a decision on WSPA's
25 contention that CEQA should have been included on the NOx
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
70
1 controls, and further concluded, you can correct me when I am
2 finished, Kathleen, let me go ahead while I'm on a roll, and
3 what WSPA would like to do is to put us on after that, they
4 think that the Bay Area plan should not be approved at this
5 time because of that issue.
6 I think our Board, and Ellen can add to this, I'm
7 sure she will, would advise this Board to go ahead and accept
8 it as is, and that will play out before the end of the month,
9 because I'm told the judge is going to retire at the end of
10 the month, so he has to have something back, and then the
11 other issue is the issue that, speaking to Mike in the last
12 24 hours, and Ellen, with the three control issues, on
13 stationary sources, and I understand that we have worked out
14 language, as the report said, that is agreeable to our staff
15 to go ahead and approve it.
16 So, I would encourage the Board to approve ours,
17 and with all due respect to WSPA, suggest that we find out
18 what happens with the judge sometime before he retires.
19 MS. WALSH: Right, Supervisor DeSaulnier, and what
20 I would have said, not to correct you, because your --
21 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Go ahead and correct me.
22 MS. WALSH: Your summary was quite accurate, but
23 just to provide you with a little bit of legal advice, that
24 is that CEQA actually addresses this very specific situation
25 that you are faced with here where a lead agency has produced
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
71
1 CEQA documentation that's being challenged in court.
2 What CEQA says is that a responsible agency, which
3 ARB is in this case, is required to assume that that
4 documentation is adequate and to proceed ahead and take
5 action on the basis of that documentation.
6 The idea being to make sure that you have all of
7 the issues related to CEQA adequacy being handled in one
8 forum and not have a bunch of different bodies trying to take
9 action on the same issue.
10 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And lastly, I should
11 acknowledge that Supervisor Patrick has been working, in
12 terms of the alternative plan, in regards to NOx and
13 transport, so we still may come to some alternative plan
14 around NOx.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Go ahead, Mark, introduce
16 the witness.
17 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I thought you were going
18 to say, and now, Ellen Garvey, but if you want me to be David
19 Letterman, I would like to introduce one of my dearest
20 friends, Ellen Garvey.
21 MS. GARVEY: Thank you, very much, Supervisor
22 DeSaulnier.
23 I don't have a top ten David Letterman type list,
24 but I do have a few comments for Chairman Dunlap and the
25 Members of the Board of Directors.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
72
1 Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity this
2 morning to provide you with some comments on the Bay Area Air
3 District's 1997 update to our Clean Air plan.
4 As I look at the Clean Air plans for California
5 that have been developed under the terms and conditions of
6 the California Clean Air Act, they are really a blueprint for
7 how to continue to control air pollution, not only throughout
8 the State, but specifically in the San Francisco Bay Area.
9 The Act provides a very ambitious but practical
10 mechanism for continuing on a step-by-step basis to improve
11 air quality in regions like the San Francisco Bay Area and
12 regions like our downwind neighbors, many of whom are
13 represented here today in the audience.
14 We have worked very consciously to make sure that
15 we are able to fulfill, we have fulfilled, all of the
16 requirements as set forth in the California Clean Air Act.
17 We have also worked diligently to meet all of the
18 deadlines for plan submittal that have been laid out in the
19 California Clean Air Act.
20 The Air District's Board of Directors adopted a
21 1997 Clean Air Plan and a triennial assessment on December
22 17, 1997.
23 We submitted the plan and the associated documents
24 to the California Air Resources Board by the prescribed
25 deadline set forth in the Act on December 31, 1997.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
73
1 Because years ago we adopted what I call, a lot of
2 the easy measures, already, we are, as ARB staff correctly
3 pointed out in their presentation, we are unable to meet the
4 five percent per year emission reduction target laid out in
5 the Act.
6 We have, however, worked diligently to identify all
7 feasible control measures and to include these control
8 measures in our plan.
9 I would like to say that ARB's review of the
10 District's draft plan has proven very, very helpful to make
11 sure that we identify all candidate control measures, and
12 that we gave all of these candidate control measures full and
13 serious consideration.
14 After submittal of the final plan to the ARB, there
15 did remain a few issues regarding the inclusion of all
16 feasible measures in our plan.
17 All of these measures have been considered and have
18 all been discussed at various levels of the staffs between
19 the two agencies, and they have all been resolved to our
20 mutual satisfaction.
21 Therefore, I believe that our plan, in combination
22 with the August twenty-fourth letter, that I believe you have
23 before you at your place, in which we commit to reexamine
24 three additional measures for nitrogen oxide controls, that
25 our plan now meets all of the requirements of State law, of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
74
1 State regulation and of State guidance.
2 I, therefore, ask that you approve the Bay Area's
3 plan, along with our triennial assessment. If you have an
4 opportunity to read through our plan, you will see that we
5 are going to be very, very busy over the next three years.
6 Our plan sets forth a very ambitious schedule to
7 continue to implement control measures to improve air quality
8 in the San Francisco Bay Area as we move forward on our quest
9 to attain the State standard for ozone.
10 We use this State plan for resources for Federal
11 planning requirements that the District is currently
12 embarking on, and will be embarking on into the mid-term
13 future.
14 In conclusion, I am going to say that I take very
15 seriously our obligation to protect the respiratory health,
16 not only of the six and a half million people that live in
17 the San Francisco Bay Area, but also of our downwind
18 neighbors.
19 We will do everything that we can, and I will
20 commit all the resources that I can through my Agency to make
21 sure that all of these measures that have been identified in
22 the plan are adopted and implemented on an expeditious
23 schedule as possible.
24 That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I will
25 be happy to answer any questions that you or other Board
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
75
1 Members may have.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any questions for Ms. Garvey?
3 Very good. Thank you.
4 You might be available, because I am going ask WSPA
5 in a minute, after Mr. Quentin comes forward, if they want to
6 say anything to help clarify this issue.
7 Kathy, I see you back there. It's an invitation,
8 not a required presence, but I will call you up after Doug,
9 if you want to say anything.
10 Mr. Quentin.
11 MR. QUENTIN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board.
12 I'm Douglas Quentin, Air Pollution Control Officer for the
13 Monterey Air District, and I appreciate the opportunity to
14 comment.
15 Your Board found that the North Central Coast Air
16 Basin and the Bay Area Basin were joined, forming -- the Bay
17 Area is upwind and the North Central Coast Basin is downwind.
18 We are finding, generally, in our air basin that
19 about half of our violations of the State Ozone Standard are
20 overwhelmingly the responsibility of the Bay Area transport,
21 and about half are shared responsibility of both air basins.
22 So, this issue is very important to us and to our
23 Board Members. We participated in the Bay Area plan
24 development, and we support their plan as proposed in your
25 Agenda.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
76
1 We also would urge your approval of the triennial
2 assessment for our air basin as well, and I would compliment
3 the ARB staff for working closely with us.
4 They are very professional and did a great job, and
5 that's it for me. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
7 Any questions of Doug?
8 All right. Very good.
9 Thank you. Kathy Reheis, of WSPA, the question
10 that I have for you, Kathy, and if you could attempt to
11 respond to would be, is there anything in the package that's
12 before us today that would preclude or serve as a problem or
13 hurdle for you all to do an alternative Bay Area NOx plan,
14 that's, I think, that is the essence of, certainly I'm
15 interested, and probably what Mark's interested in knowing?
16 MS. REHEIS: Well, since I'm not a lawyer, I'm not
17 sure on the implications of this Board's action to approve a
18 plan which is in the state of uncertainty, the litigation and
19 court case --
20 I think the purpose for our letter and what we
21 submitted is to appraise the Board of the situation and to
22 let you know that the litigation is ongoing and that the
23 settlement discussions are continuing with the downwind
24 districts and with the ARB as directed by the Bay Area on the
25 alternative compliance plan.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
77
1 We are waiting to hear, sort of, the Bay Area's
2 view on that compliance plan, and I think they are waiting to
3 hear the court's view on the litigation before they engage
4 with that activity.
5 So, our letter is submitted for the record to
6 protect our interests in the litigation.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Well, I mean, maybe let me
8 ask the staff this question, depending on which way the
9 litigation is dealt with, and we don't know, we can't predict
10 what the court will do, but by adopting this do you think it
11 would kill the ability to have this alternative control plan
12 approach, Kathleen?
13 MS. WALSH: Chairman Dunlap, there is nothing in a
14 decision that this Board would make today to approve the Bay
15 Area plan that would preclude future actions in response to
16 either a settlement agreement or should the judge make an
17 order that directed the District to go back and revisit their
18 plan, that would preclude that activity from going forward.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
20 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: But would it prejudice it?
21 MS. WALSH: No.
22 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: John, I think the answer
23 to the question is that my Board still wants to look at the
24 alternative plan, but they wanted to run a parallel course to
25 go ahead with the litigation, so depending on what happens,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
78
1 it will obviously be different perspectives, but it's going
2 to go ahead.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah, and I think that
4 Ms. Reheis and her colleagues, they are interested in keeping
5 this thing in play to see if you can get there cheaper,
6 quicker, more efficiently, etcetera, and that is a reasoned
7 thing to try to seek.
8 I don't think it is anybody's intention to, you
9 know, kill that, or, you know, to not allow that to emerge,
10 if, in fact, people can embrace it.
11 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I think the next step,
12 John, is really at your suggestion, is regardless of what
13 happens legally, is for the technical people with support
14 from here to the air districts to see if the alternative plan
15 can deliver what the plan was suggesting that it can.
16 MS. REHEIS: And a discussion with your legal
17 counsel, that is our understanding, as well, that there is
18 nothing that the action taken today would preclude that.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Gotcha.
20 That answers that for me.
21 Ellen, is there anything -- did I get any of that
22 wrong, from your view?
23 Okay. All right.
24 Very good. That is end of the witnesses.
25 Thank you, Ms. Reheis. Sorry to pull you up like
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
79
1 that, but it helped.
2 Written comments?
3 Anything, Dean?
4 MR. SAITO: We just had the one comment from WSPA
5 that Supervisor DeSaulnier summarized previously.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right.
7 Ms. Terry, anything that you want to add?
8 MS. TERRY: Nothing else.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. If I could just say a
10 word, I will make it brief.
11 The rulemaking responsibilities that, you know, the
12 State has, and the locals have, are essential, and I want to
13 encourage everybody here representing local districts, and
14 our own staff, to make sure that we keep our eye on meeting
15 rulemaking commitments, things that are in plans should be
16 dealt with, because we need to be able to continue progress,
17 obviously, because we have a serious air quality challenge in
18 the State.
19 Also, and I have said this before, you know, we are
20 asked repeatedly to go to the Legislature and explain our
21 Program.
22 I can't tell you how many times this year we have
23 had to send our people over there to answer questions, and
24 also on occasion even have to answer questions about local
25 air districts.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
80
1 So, I want to encourage you all representing the
2 local districts, and again, our rulemaking staff, to make
3 sure that we live up to our commitments and make sure that we
4 are clear on our communications and that we understand that
5 when we've hit bumps in the road that we are going to need to
6 take a change of course, because if we don't communicate with
7 ourselves, we can't do a very good job in defending the
8 Program.
9 So, again, I just wanted to emphasize the point
10 that we need to, you know, live up to our commitments.
11 Okay. If there isn't anything else on this Item,
12 we don't have to close the record.
13 We have before us Resolution 98-36, which contains
14 the staff recommendation.
15 The Chair would entertain a motion and a second.
16 Supervisor Roberts, and a second by Mr. Parnell.
17 Any discussion that we need to have?
18 Very good. All right.
19 Then we will do a voice vote.
20 All those in favor of approving the staff
21 recommendation, Resolution 98-36, please say aye.
22 Any opposed?
23 Very good. Thank you.
24 Ms. Terry, thank you. Okay.
25 Okay. We will move to, how are we doing with time,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
81
1 are we doing okay?
2 We will move to the next Item, Amendments to the
3 Cleaner Burning Gasoline Regulations, 98-9-2.
4 This Item is a proposal from staff to change
5 certain regulatory provisions concerning oxygen in gasoline.
6 The changes would give refiners some limited
7 additional flexibility for the amount of oxygen that may be
8 used in fuel, gasoline.
9 The Board's Reformulated Gas Program, also known as
10 Cleaner Burning Gasoline, has been extremely successful. The
11 air quality benefits of this Program are equivalent to
12 removing 3.5 million cars from our roadways.
13 Last year the staff began discussions with the
14 refining industry to see what steps could be taken to provide
15 more flexibility to refiners to manage oxygenates usage.
16 The discussions were entered into with the
17 understanding that any regulatory changes could not result in
18 a loss of air quality benefits.
19 At this point, we have before us one step in
20 providing more flexibility in the Cleaner Burning Gasoline
21 Program.
22 I understand that work will be under way to develop
23 future proposals. However, one crucial element of oxygenate
24 flexibility is not in our control.
25 The Board can provide only limited flexibility as
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
82
1 long as Federal law requires a minimum oxygen content in
2 reformulated gasoline, and severe and extreme ozone
3 nonattainment areas, even though the oxygen is not the only
4 way to the emission performance of cleaner burning gasoline.
5 For California, 70 percent of our gasoline is
6 subject to this Federal Oxygenate mandate. I believe that as
7 long as emission benefits of our Program would remain intact,
8 the Board should do what it can to enable refiners to have
9 flexibility in the use of oxygenates.
10 However, we need to recognize that the overlay of
11 Federal law on our regulations limit the practical effect of
12 anything that we may do.
13 In recognition of this, I have personally testified
14 in support of Congressman Bilbray's Legislation, HR 630, and
15 have gone on record in support of Senator Feinstein's
16 companion bill.
17 Both bills would allow California to have its own
18 program and not be subject to the Federal minimum oxygenate
19 requirement.
20 As long as California's program provides the same
21 benefits as the Federal program, I encourage all to support
22 these bills.
23 At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Scheible to
24 introduce the Item and his team.
25 Mike.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
83
1 MR. SCHEIBLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2 Earlier this year, we began an effort to bring to
3 you a number of changes to increase flexibility in the
4 Cleaner Burning Gasoline Program, quite a bit more
5 comprehensive than what we have before us today.
6 What we found out in that effort is that we were
7 limited mostly by time and events in terms of the number of
8 changes requested by the industry that we could deal with in
9 1998. This is for several factors.
10 First, the technical information available for us
11 to update the model to relate how emissions change, changes
12 in the fuel parameters, was not as broad as we wanted, and
13 the model was a very difficult thing to put together and get
14 working properly.
15 We weren't able to fully solve that to our
16 satisfaction or the satisfaction of the industry.
17 The second reason was just alluded to by the
18 Chairman, which is to gain real flexibility relative to the
19 amount of oxygen used in gasoline in California, we needed a
20 change in the Federal law, and that change, although we
21 supported it and introduced by both the Senate and the House,
22 it was not moving quickly enough, so making a change this
23 year would not have the practical benefits for the refiners.
24 Third, we have a somewhat difficult issue of
25 determining how we can ensure that we provide flexibility
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
84
1 without compromising air quality benefits, and we weren't
2 able to fully complete that work.
3 So, today we are bringing you a relatively modest
4 proposal for a couple of changes in the Cleaner Burning
5 Gasoline Regulation, but with the hope that we will continue
6 to work on this issue and will at a future date return to the
7 Board with a set of changes that will both ensure that we
8 continue the benefits of the Program and yet provide refiners
9 with the maximum flexibility that we can, to that supply,
10 price, and we get more flexibility in the future in terms of
11 how much oxygen is used and the type of that oxygenate.
12 With that, I would like to turn the presentation
13 over to staff, and Richard Vincent, of the Stationary Source
14 Division, will give the staff's presentation.
15 Thank you.
16 MR. VINCENT: Thank you, Mr. Scheible.
17 The first slide shows the structure of this talk.
18 After reviewing the factors that influence these,
19 of oxygenates and gasoline, I will present the regulatory
20 changes that we are proposing today.
21 The Board's current gasoline regulations took
22 effect in 1996. They set limits on eight gasoline properties
23 that effect emissions.
24 Those limits were selected to provide the maximum
25 reduction of emissions. The right column on this table shows
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
85
1 the cap limits, which apply to all gasoline at all points in
2 commerce.
3 These caps are fixed. They cannot be changed by
4 any means.
5 Gasoline leading refinery, or importing side, also
6 is subject to more stringent limits, which we call the flat,
7 or the averaging limits, except for RVP, those limits can be
8 adjusted, as I will explain shortly.
9 This slide shows the flat and averaging limits that
10 apply if a refiner chooses the basic compliance option.
11 Under this basic option, each batch of gasoline
12 contains 1.8 to 2.2 weight percent oxygen. The ARB does not
13 control what oxygen bearing compound can provide that oxygen.
14 The oxygen cap is now at 2.7 by weight. Like all
15 the property limits, the cap for oxygen was set in 1991,
16 before the predicted model was even developed.
17 The staff chose 2.7 for that cap because we were
18 unsure of NOx emissions and higher oxygen contents. With the
19 expectation of creating a predictive model to allow oxygen
20 contents greater that the basic limit at 2.2 percent, it was
21 still prudent to limit such higher contents to 2.7 percent.
22 To comply with respect to any of the property
23 limits, each refiner can meet the basic flat limit with each
24 batch of gasoline, or for six properties, the refiner can
25 move the basic averaging limit.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
86
1 In compliance by averaging, some batches of
2 gasoline can exceed the averaging limit if they are offset by
3 other batches that are below the limit.
4 However, no batch may exceed the associated cap
5 limit. A third alternative for refiners is to use the
6 predictive model.
7 This option was added to the regulations in 1994.
8 The model identifies alternative flat and averaging limits
9 that provide the same or greater emission benefits in
10 hydrocarbons, NOx and toxic emissions, as do the basic
11 limits.
12 Virtually all gasoline in California is now made to
13 limits set by the predictive model. Using the model allows
14 refiners to reduce compliance costs and increase their
15 production capacity for complying gasoline.
16 A particular use of the model is to set oxygen
17 limits outside the basic compliance range of 1.8 to 2.2
18 weight percent.
19 A refiner can reduce the minimum oxygen to zero,
20 except during the winter, and can increase the maximum limit
21 up the cap limit, the 2.7 percent.
22 Except in the winter, the predictive model allows
23 compliance with the California RFG regulations without the
24 use of oxygen.
25 If a refiner does add oxygen to gasoline, it may
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
87
1 choose any oxygenate allowed by the U.S. EPA. The California
2 regulations do not distinguish among the oxygenates.
3 So far, MTBE has been the refiner's oxygenate of
4 choice for technical and economic reasons. The Federal Clean
5 Air Act requires oxygen in gasoline that must be Federal RFG
6 standards, with an average content of 2 weight percent.
7 Those standards apply to about 70 percent of the
8 gasoline used in California. In addition, the Act
9 conditionally requires State Implementation Plans to include
10 oxygen in gasoline in Federal CO nonattainment areas.
11 The map shows the areas where the Federal RFG
12 standards apply. The winter oxygen requirement is a special
13 requirement to the California RFG regulations.
14 It was adopted in 1991 in response to a Federal law
15 that requires such a program in CO nonattainment areas.
16 The Board made this statewide in 1991, because
17 there were then eight non CO attainment areas that accounted
18 for 80 percent of the gasoline used in the State.
19 However, with this excess of the Mobile Source and
20 Fuel Programs, only Los Angeles is now classified as Federal
21 nonattainment for CO.
22 Now, I will turn to the matter of increasing
23 flexibility under the California RFG regulations.
24 Early this year, the Western States Petroleum
25 Association asked the staff to develop several changes to the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
88
1 regulations.
2 WSPA requested updating the predictive model with
3 recent test data and adding a model for evaporative
4 hydrocarbon emissions.
5 WSPA also requested higher cap limits on five
6 properties and rescinding the winter oxygen requirement where
7 that would be appropriate.
8 WSPA's goal is to gain for refiners more
9 flexibility to change the type and amount of oxygenate added
10 to gasoline.
11 Regardless of whatever changes the ARB may
12 incorporate with its own regulations, meaningful flexibility
13 would require a change in Federal law to waive for California
14 the oxygen requirement in the Federal RFG.
15 House Bill 630, introduced by Congressman Bilbray
16 and a similar Senate Bill by Senator Feinstein, would make
17 the needed change.
18 The staff supports these bills.
19 The staff worked on WSPA's request under the
20 constraint that the benefits in the regulation should not
21 diminish.
22 The staff held an initial workshop on March
23 twenty-third about the idea of increased flexibility.
24 During the next two months, we held biweekly public
25 meetings to present our progress and to receive the work and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
89
1 views of other interested parties.
2 On June fifth, we held a second workshop to review
3 some possible changes to the regulations. After several
4 months of work, several technical problems and issues
5 remained unresolved.
6 We found that there was not enough data to update
7 the predictive model correctly, and there are technical
8 problems with drafting new models.
9 These matters are not necessarily intractable;
10 however, they will require new data and more analysis than
11 can be done in the short-term.
12 Of the potential changes investigated by the staff,
13 only increasing the cap limit on oxygen and rescinding the
14 winter oxygen requirement in CO attainment areas can be
15 proposed today.
16 By themselves, these changes can provide only minor
17 improvements to flexibility in oxygen management.
18 We are proposing that the Board increase the cap on
19 the oxygen content from 2.7 to 3.5 percent by weight, and to
20 rescind the minimum requirement for oxygen in the areas that
21 have reached attainment for the Federal and CO standards for
22 ambient CO.
23 Also, we recommend four technical changes to the
24 regulations that are not related to flexibility issues.
25 Increasing the oxygen cap to 3.5 percent by weight
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
90
1 would allow up to 10 percent ethanol in gasoline.
2 The predictive model would remain valid in its
3 current form, and it would protect against increases in
4 exhaust emissions under the higher oxygen cap.
5 The proposal to rescind the minimum oxygen
6 requirement for winter gasoline applies to all areas that
7 have attained the Federal and State CO standards, that is,
8 Northern California and San Diego.
9 Because of continuing violations of the Federal
10 standard in Los Angeles, the requirement cannot be rescinded
11 in the greater South Coast area.
12 Also, we recommend retaining the requirement in
13 Imperial County. Even though Imperial is not Federally
14 designated as nonattainment, it records violations of the
15 Federal CO standard.
16 The recession can be immediate in most of the
17 attainment areas; however, we recommend delaying the date of
18 effect for two years in Fresno and in Lake Tahoe so that the
19 vehicle fleet turnover can provide an extra cushion of
20 emission reductions.
21 It should be remembered that the proposed change
22 would remove a requirement that applies only to winter
23 gasoline and that 70 percent of the gasoline in the State
24 would still be subject to the year-round Federal requirement
25 for oxygen and Federal RFG.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
91
1 We also are recommending four technical changes
2 that are not related to flexibility. One change would allow
3 small retail sites more time with the start of the winter to
4 turn their storage tanks over to oxygenated gasoline.
5 Another would correct an anomaly that prevents an
6 enforcement action against certain noncompliant batches under
7 the averaging system of compliance.
8 A third change would apply the RVP limit to
9 gasoline shipped into Southern California from the Bay Area
10 during the RVP phase-in period.
11 And the fourth change would clarify that racing
12 fuel is exempt from California RFG regulations.
13 The direct effects of adopting a proposal would be
14 small. There would be no new costs imposed on any regulated
15 party, and the changes would preserve the emission benefits
16 of the Gasoline Program, except for possible temporary
17 increase in CO emissions in attainment areas, the increase
18 would not endanger maintaining compliance with the ambient CO
19 standards.
20 However, there could be a major indirect effect on
21 the Board's ability to control the evaporative hydrocarbon
22 emissions with the RVP limit on gasoline.
23 Under the proposed oxygen cap, gasoline could
24 contain 10 percent ethanol. A provision of State law exempts
25 such gasoline for the Board's RVP limit unless the Board
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
92
1 determines that the ozone forming potential of emissions
2 would increase.
3 Without that Board finding, the RVP of 10 percent
4 ethanol blends could increase by about one pound per square
5 inch beginning next March.
6 This would allow a large increase in evaporative
7 emissions from each gallon of exempt gasoline. The increase
8 would not be offset by the predictive model, which addresses
9 only exhaust emissions.
10 To address the effect of such an emission increase,
11 State law allows the Board to make a finding of increased
12 ozone forming potential of emissions from high RVP ethanol
13 leaded gasoline.
14 If the Board makes such a finding, the RVP
15 exemption would no longer apply. The staff has completed an
16 emission test program on 10 percent ethanol gasoline, and the
17 data is publicly available and staff has solicited comments.
18 We are also reviewing relative data from other
19 studies. We plan to bring the Board a recommendation for a
20 finding in December.
21 As I stated before, the current proposal can
22 provide only limited flexibility in oxygen management,
23 especially in light of the oxygen requirements in Federal
24 law.
25 Therefore, we will continue to investigate changes
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
93
1 to the predictive model and other elements of the
2 regulations.
3 The work will continue in consultation with
4 refiners, the auto industry and other groups concerned about
5 the composition of gasoline.
6 Once again, we recommend that the Board raise the
7 oxygen cap limit to 3.5 weight percent, rescind the
8 requirement for oxygen in winter gasoline in attainment areas
9 and make four technical changes to the regulations.
10 That concludes the presentation.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right.
12 Do the Board Members have any questions before we
13 get into witnesses?
14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: It is so infrequent that
15 I understand why you could be startled.
16 The question is, will this action make it easier
17 for refiners to do, as TOSCO has done in Northern California
18 at their Rodeo plant, to have the flexibility not to use MTBE
19 and just use ethanol or some other oxygen?
20 MR. SIMEROTH: Supervisor DeSaulnier, it certainly
21 provides them the additional flexibility, particularly in the
22 wintertime, and it also gives them a wider range of ethanol
23 to use year-round.
24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I will share with my
25 Board Members, since they have done this at their UnoCal
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
94
1 stations in the East Bay, they have put up big signs, no
2 MTBE, I don't know if it's working as a marketing strategy,
3 but it's not working as well as dropping the price.
4 MR. SCHEIBLE: It does increase flexibility, but it
5 is very limited. The other factors will still, I think, keep
6 the current practices occurring.
7 This is just a small step in the right direction.
8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Mr. Calhoun.
9 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: If we assume that ethanol is
10 going to be the oxygenate that will be used to increase the
11 level from the current up to the maximum allowed, there is a
12 potential down-side, that is the change in vapor pressure,
13 and you cite that in your presentation.
14 Now, what are we going to do about that?
15 MR. SIMEROTH: Board Member Calhoun, the intention
16 is that we will come back in December with a recommendation
17 to the Board regarding the finding that we are authorized to
18 make under the State law, that is if use of ethanol results
19 in an increase in ozone forming potential, we will make a
20 finding recognizing that, and that means the RVP waiver will
21 not go into place.
22 If we find that there is no increase in ozone
23 forming potential, then there is not an impact on ozone,
24 there may be impact on benzine emissions that we will have to
25 address separately.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
95
1 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I want to follow-up on, you
2 know, this oxygen cap appears in absolute terms to be a small
3 number, but it's a 30 percent increase in what exists
4 currently.
5 Since we are going to either simulate, or test to
6 see the influence of raising the vapor pressure and come to
7 some conclusion in December, why are we waiting until
8 December to act on this proposal?
9 I have no clue what the cumulative effect is going
10 to be, and you are telling us, I think, that soon we will
11 know a couple months from now.
12 MR. SCHEIBLE: We have confidence that we currently
13 have the data and can proceed to make that finding in
14 December.
15 We have packaged this together as a group of
16 changes. We think we have incorporated a mechanism to ensure
17 that there won't be a problem come next season when the vapor
18 pressure season comes into effect, we will have dealt with
19 it.
20 During the wintertime the vapor pressure is not an
21 issue. In the summertime, by the time that the summer smog
22 season starts next year, we will have dealt with the issue
23 completely, and our regs will be whole.
24 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Mike, this is because you
25 have either real data or simulated data?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
96
1 MR. SCHEIBLE: No.
2 We have real test data. We have a wealth of test
3 data with this.
4 We simply have to interpret it and go through a
5 whole new process.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mike, let me be more direct, how
7 come it is not packaged with this thing now?
8 I mean, is it just a merge?
9 I mean, you could just say, we just got it,
10 whatever it is, but you need to give us an indication on why
11 it couldn't have been coupled now.
12 MR. SCHEIBLE: Well, the test data became available
13 fairly recently, and we would have had to delay this entire
14 thing today, and we wanted to move ahead as soon as possible
15 providing the most flexibility that we can for this winter.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: But it will be dealt with in
17 time, in answer to Dr. Friedman's question, for them to deal
18 with it for the summer?
19 MR. SCHEIBLE: Yes.
20 We have to do that, otherwise we would not be
21 responsible in addressing this environmental --
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, WSPA is going to speak.
23 Mr. Kulakowski is going to speak.
24 We are going to ask him in a minute, if he's here,
25 to talk about is that is enough time.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
97
1 Is he here?
2 All the witnesses, if you come up to the front row,
3 we will get you up here.
4 Dr. Friedman, I stepped on you there.
5 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: No, I'm listening. You
6 know me, if I have some more questions, I will ask.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right.
8 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Did I not understand you,
9 Mr. Scheible, to state in your intro that the data that you
10 have collected so far did not fit the model, the predictive
11 model?
12 MR. SCHEIBLE: We didn't have all the information
13 that we wanted so that we really could relate on numerous of
14 the parameters in the predictive model in terms of T50, other
15 contents, so that we could revise the whole model.
16 That wasn't related to the finding in terms of
17 increased vapor pressure and the effect on emissions.
18 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: So, you need to do some more
19 work?
20 MR. SCHEIBLE: With respect to the model, yes.
21 The model is a very complicated black box.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Why don't we get the
23 witnesses up here.
24 Todd Campbell, Mike Kulakowski, and Al Jessel.
25 Did you check in with Ms. Hutchens?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
98
1 MR. CAMPBELL: Chairman Dunlap, Members of the
2 Board, Todd Campbell, Coalition for Clean Air, and also
3 representing the Sierra Club on this issue.
4 We would like to send a strong statement of
5 opposition to this Item at this time, given that it has been
6 the Coalition's long understanding that any modification to
7 the California Reformulated Gasoline Regulations would not
8 result in an increase of emissions to threaten the goal of
9 emissions equivalents in the flexibility process.
10 However, the proposed amendment, as it was said in
11 the presentation, triggers an outdated 1991 RVP exemption for
12 ethanol blends, blends that CARB staff themselves have found
13 to cause 10 to 18 percent increase in hydrocarbons emissions.
14 We do not agree with the staff's recommendation to
15 pass this rulemaking at this time, allowing this adverse
16 exemption only to retract it at some future date when CARB
17 finalizes its ethanol findings.
18 We feel that this is a premature move. The fact
19 that CARB's own data indicates that ethanol blends increase
20 ozone forming emissions should be a cause for concern.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, you think we should not allow
22 this exemption as of this date; is that correct?
23 MR. CAMPBELL: We should not go forward and pass
24 this rulemaking without making the findings final.
25 We think, you know, if we have the data --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
99
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Campbell, let me ask
2 this question.
3 We are going to have the data, Mike, right, in the
4 December timeframe to deal with this; is that correct?
5 MR. SCHEIBLE: We are going to complete the
6 analysis of the data.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Are we likely to deal with his
8 concern then?
9 MR. SCHEIBLE: Yes. We have to.
10 And also, to clarify, let's presume we look at the
11 data and we find out that there is an increase in ozone
12 forming potential, we do not rescind the allowance to a 3.5
13 percent oxygenate.
14 We simply say that when you use that you have to
15 use it in a non RVP season, or you have to blend the fuel
16 with a lower RVP base mix so that you don't exceed the vapor
17 pressure standards.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I did not mean to cut you off,
19 but I understand where you are coming from, but we are going
20 to have this dealt with effectively in December.
21 I would like it all today, too. I'm where you are
22 with that, but we can't.
23 MR. CAMPBELL: We have a concern about the process,
24 you know, we don't want to jump the gun and, you know, it
25 seems like an out of step move for us, and we have some
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
100
1 strong concerns on this issue.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. We have noted it, and I
3 wouldn't necessarily disagree with you about the timing.
4 I understand the urgency of it. Okay.
5 Good. Thank you.
6 Mr. Kulakowski, and Mr. Jessel, and then Ms.
7 Hathaway, if you will check in with the Clerk, Janet.
8 MR. KULAKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, Members of the
9 Board. Good morning.
10 My name is Mike Kulakowski. I work for the biggest
11 little company that you have probably never heard Eculon
12 Enterprises, which is refining and marketing alliance between
13 Shell and Texaco.
14 I am here today representing the Western States
15 Petroleum Association. You should have or will have our
16 written comments, and my oral comments today will summarize
17 those.
18 WSPA is a trade organization with over 30 members.
19 We produce, market, refine and transport the bulk of
20 petroleum and petroleum products in the five western states.
21 We support ARB's proposal to rescind at above
22 minimum oxygen content for the Federal CO nonattainment areas
23 before you today.
24 We also support ARB's objective of providing
25 refiners a greater number of certification options for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
101
1 cleaner burning gasoline, because it can allow refiners to
2 ease production constraints and alter oxygenate contents in
3 significant ways.
4 We are, however, somewhat disappointed that the
5 modifications ARB staff is presenting today to the Board do
6 not achieve the intended objective.
7 Nonetheless, WSPA is willing to move forward with
8 the ARB staff to resolve outstanding issues that can lead to
9 useful changes.
10 We also want to clearly state that in the
11 development of new options, we support and will continue to
12 support maintenance of the emission benefits to the
13 California Cleaner Burning Gasoline Program that were
14 expected when the Board adopted the rules for 1991.
15 We also wish to reiterate, and it has been clearly
16 pointed out by staff, that even if the ARB were to approve
17 more certification options for the CBG Program, oxygenate use
18 could be altered only modestly, if at all, by refiners.
19 These alterations are limited by the U.S.
20 regulations on Federal reformulated gas as required in most
21 of the State.
22 To relieve this constraint, the ARB, local air
23 districts, water supply agencies and WSPA support passage of
24 the Bilbray/Feinstein Legislation, which remove the
25 duplication and overlap of the two programs.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
102
1 Without passage of this Legislation, we find
2 ourselves little ability to reduce or change the use of
3 oxygenates.
4 We request that the ARB continue to work with WSPA,
5 U.S. EPA, Congress and other Administration officials to
6 promote passage of the Legislation.
7 When we started this rulemaking, we had high hopes.
8 We had four recommendations we made to the staff of things
9 that they should evaluate and to remunerate in their proposal
10 or their presentation.
11 We discussed updating and making other changes to
12 the predictive model, considering evaporative emissions as a
13 part of the predictive model, increasing cap limits for
14 several of the control parameters and rescinding the
15 wintertime minimum requirements.
16 Only one of these, actually the last item, only a
17 small part of the next to last item are considered for
18 adoption today.
19 Clearly, this package does little to achieve our
20 original goals. While I highlight the commitment by all was
21 great, progress was significant, although several issues
22 could not be resolved in adequate time to present a
23 comprehensive package to the Board today.
24 Addressing the specific issues before you today,
25 WSPA does support the proposal to remove the wintertime
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
103
1 minimum oxygenate requirement.
2 EPA's action to redesignate the CO nonattainment
3 areas, and ARB's analysis of the safety margin demonstrate
4 unequivocally that the Program is not needed and consumers
5 should not have to pay for it in many parts of California.
6 We support staff's judgment on Fresno and Lake
7 Tahoe and believe that the two year delay in that recision is
8 appropriate.
9 We do have a concern, however, that while ARB staff
10 proposes to end the winter program as soon as possible, Board
11 action by itself does not accomplish this goal.
12 We ask the ARB to expedite the next steps so that
13 California refiners can make operational changes where
14 possible.
15 The winter oxygenated gas season starts October
16 first in most of the State. That means that refiners are
17 currently making gasoline to those requirements for a lot of
18 retail stations to be in compliance at the proper time.
19 Once the Board takes the steps today, there are
20 several steps that must be achieved before refiners
21 completely change their formulas.
22 Some of these steps apply to the State and some to
23 the Federal EPA. We urge the Board to direct staff to submit
24 the necessary documents quickly to complete the State steps,
25 including an expedited submission to the Office of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
104
1 Administrative Law.
2 We also urge ARB to take the steps necessary for
3 the Federal process as quickly as possible. It's our
4 understanding that pursuant to Federal law the oxygen
5 requirements are included in the SIP and are, therefore,
6 likely Federally enforceable.
7 The revision to the SIP, as needed, should be filed
8 immediately with the EPA with the request that it be approved
9 as quickly as possible.
10 For the regulatory reasons described above,
11 California should not expect immediate changes in the use of
12 oxygenate with the Board's decision today.
13 Even once EPA has approved the SIP revision, the
14 State has completed the processes, California should not
15 expect huge changes because of the Federal reformulated
16 gasoline requirements.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Even about oxygenated choice?
18 Other than MTBE, is what I am getting at.
19 MR. KULAKOWSKI: I'm sorry, in reference to?
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You are saying that we shouldn't
21 expect big changes.
22 MR. KULAKOWSKI: I think that oxygenate choice is
23 an issue for each refinery.
24 Each individual refinery is making that choice. I
25 think there was reference to one.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
105
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Not to confound this discussion,
2 but you are saying, don't expect big changes.
3 What I am getting at is, are there, is there any
4 movement to look at other oxygenate other than MTBE, as far
5 as volume to choose and concerns that people are expressing?
6 MR. KULAKOWSKI: I can speak for my company to say
7 that there aren't -- cut-out some changes in flexibility, so
8 the changes that we had mentioned earlier in our testimony,
9 there is not a lot of flexibility to make those changes.
10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
11 MR. KULAKOWSKI: I would just like to close by
12 saying that there may be a question in some people's minds
13 about the value of the State taking action before Federal
14 Legislation on oxygenate or Federal reformulated gasoline
15 changes.
16 WSPA strongly believes that to make real progress,
17 changes in both State and Federal rules must be made in
18 today's action and represents an important first step.
19 That concludes my formal testimony, and I would be
20 happy to answer any questions.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mike, Peter, what about some of
22 his suggestions about SIP updates and paperwork, you know,
23 getting things moving, are those reasonable requests?
24 Are we dealing with them? Are we positioned well?
25 What can you say about that?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
106
1 MR. VENTURINI: Mr. Chairman, this is something
2 that we have discussed, and we have, in prior discussions,
3 the staff's intent to follow, as quickly as we can, the State
4 process, prepare the documents, get it through the OAL
5 process as quickly as possible.
6 We will also proceed as quickly as we can to submit
7 the SIP revision to EPA.
8 Also, beyond that, I think we have made a
9 commitment that is reflected in the draft Resolution to try
10 to work along with the WSPA and other companies, with EPA to
11 urge them to move very quickly in their approval of that SIP
12 revision.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. It sounds like you
14 have gotten that under way.
15 If you would talk to this gentleman and find out if
16 he has some ideas that maybe you haven't thought about, make
17 sure we are not depositioning ourselves relative to schedules
18 and process.
19 MR. VENTURINI: We will do that.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Kulakowski.
21 MR. KULAKOWSKI: I thought your question,
22 Mr. Chairman, was more pointed at the other items included in
23 the WSPA list.
24 This solely pertains to oxygenate, and there were a
25 number of other items listed also in there.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
107
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah, not to belabor it, I mean,
2 there is some discretionary things that I believe, I have
3 said this before, that I think your industry could do
4 relative to the MTBE issues, which is largely a public
5 information one, and there are some serious concerns out
6 there.
7 That is all.
8 My question was just to say, you know, are you guys
9 working on anything other than being so dependent upon,
10 process-wise, using MTBE? That is all.
11 It wasn't a trick question. I know that you can't
12 speak for every company.
13 There's economic decisions, and all of this, I
14 understand that, but there is an opportunity for leadership
15 in your industry, too.
16 We have been a partner, as you know, with your
17 industry to deliver a cleaner product, but at the same time,
18 you know, again, this issue about MTBE in particular is
19 crying out for leadership from industry not just government.
20 You and Mr. Jessel, you can take that message back,
21 that's an encouraging comment about exploring all options,
22 because I think you can make a real difference.
23 MR. KULAKOWSKI: Just in response, Mr. Dunlap, I
24 think that the petition that we did file that requested
25 changes to the regulations to increase flexibility can be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
108
1 construed as a statement of leadership.
2 We took the initiative to try to make the changes
3 that we all agreed were necessary to promote true oxygen
4 flexibility.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Understood, but the individual
6 decision to use MTBE is what I am focusing on more
7 specifically.
8 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess I'm looking at Peter
9 Venturini, and I think that Mike's questions are, at least
10 two, are kind of tied into each other.
11 There were other issues that WSPA brought before
12 you, and we just glossed over them. Some of these changes
13 may be needed to do what WSPA would like.
14 Why don't you just tell us the status of where the
15 staff is in terms of trying to resolve these other issues?
16 MR. VENTURINI: Okay. But let me just briefly, and
17 then maybe Mr. Simeroth will want to go into a little more
18 detail.
19 We undertook this discussion and the proposals by
20 WSPA with collectively the hope that we could provide some
21 additional flexibility to allow California refiners a little
22 more flexibility to managing oxygenates through some changes
23 to the predictive model with the constraint that we would not
24 compromise the benefits of the Program.
25 As we got into the extensive technical work, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
109
1 both WSPA members and staff spent a lot of time doing a lot
2 of technical work, running models, assessing new data, as
3 well as representatives from the auto industry and others,
4 and basically what we came down to is that when we started to
5 take a look at, for example, how some of the new test
6 programs on vehicle emissions, and we started to insert them
7 into the model, we saw, for example, strange, or weird
8 responses in the model that you wouldn't expect from a
9 technical perspective, and we couldn't resolve very quickly,
10 or readily, and I think as a result of that we kind of
11 stepped back, and I think collectively, kind of, maybe we are
12 moving too fast, let's do what we can now and then let's
13 follow-up with these other items, which we intend to do to
14 see what other steps we can take to provide some additional
15 flexibility through the model.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Friedman.
17 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I'm, you know, as a medical
18 term, I'm constipated on this issue, and the reason that I am
19 is because, first of all, it's a very important issue, and I
20 would like to be in a position to make a determination that
21 is data driven, and I'm not seeing any, and I'm puzzled by
22 this.
23 I appreciate your sort of checks, balances, kind of
24 total result, probably that is right, but we ought to know
25 that for a fact before we make a change like this.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
110
1 I appreciate the market forces, and the issue of
2 winter, summer and so forth, and it may be that we have to
3 wait a little while and really look at the data and then move
4 ahead, maybe, you know, on a different schedule that would be
5 optimal for this coming summer, but most of the
6 determinations that we have been making about big issues like
7 this have been backed by substantial information.
8 I think I'm really having a problem. I don't think
9 that I can support this just on that basis, not because I
10 don't think it will all work out, but be convincing, and I
11 want to be convinced with real information, and I don't see
12 that right at the moment, so --
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Well, what I think that
14 I would like to do, and we are going to have to deal with
15 Dr. Friedman's concern, and I share it, at least in part, so
16 why don't we come back to that.
17 I would like to work through the witnesses. Mike,
18 I will ask you to keep a list, so that we can deal with this
19 and come back in a systematic way.
20 Anything else for our witness?
21 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'm feeling the same unease,
22 but it seems to be underscored by the fact that on the need
23 to hurry is offset by the fact that there are so many other
24 hurdles out there, and it's a question of the process here,
25 why are we doing this when there are so many other things out
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
111
1 there that we are trying to accelerate a piece of this
2 without having the basic information?
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, and I think as this plays
4 out we will see that there is some support to do this small
5 step, but at the same time, I would agree that there is some
6 more work that needs to be done and some things need to come
7 back so that we get the whole picture.
8 Are there any questions on this side, because I am
9 going to excuse the witness, and we will get to the next
10 couple.
11 Thank you. The next witness is Mr. Jessel, from
12 Chevron, Tom Koehler, from the Ethanol Industry and Ms.
13 Hathaway.
14 MR. JESSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Board.
15 I'm pleased to be here.
16 I think that some of the things that I am going to
17 say here, I am going to start speaking to some of the issues
18 that the Board Members raised, and maybe as a representative
19 of a specific company, I can be a little more specific about
20 at least what Chevron is doing in this regard.
21 I will read my statement and then let you have a
22 chance for some questions and answers. As you are probably
23 aware, Chevron has publicly stated our desire to
24 significantly reduce, or eliminate the use of MTBE due to the
25 concerns and demands of our customers.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
112
1 To achieve this goal, we believe that the Federal
2 reformulated gasoline and oxygen content mandate must be
3 removed, and the California gasoline rules need to be
4 modified.
5 To these ends, we have been actively involved in
6 support of the Bilbury/Feinstein bills in Congress, and the
7 ARB process to develop additional reformulation options for
8 California gasoline.
9 We wish to speak today directly to the decision of
10 the minimum oxygenate requirements as proposed by your staff.
11 We feel recision is a very important step in
12 allowing us to reduce MTBE and strongly urge to adopt the
13 staff proposal.
14 Chevron is capable of making a significant quantity
15 of non oxygenated gasoline for sale in Northern California
16 regions not covered by the Federal RFG, and we did so during
17 the last two summers.
18 The only thing stopping us right now from
19 continuing that summer practice right into winter is the last
20 few steps that the ARB and the EPA need to take to make
21 today's proposed action final and fully effective, assuming,
22 of course, that the Board adopts today's proposal.
23 Inasmuch as the staff report recommends the
24 recision take place as soon as possible, and that's on the
25 staff report, page 9, we recommend the ARB act today to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
113
1 authorize and direct the Executive Officer to clear the last
2 few steps.
3 In our estimation, the biggest remaining obstacle
4 after you act to rescind your goal today is approval by the
5 Federal Environmental Protection Agency of direction.
6 Traditionally, the ARB revises the State
7 Implementation Plan that must then be approved by the EPA
8 before the recision can become fully effective.
9 This process could easily take months, or years as
10 EPA's SIP revisal process has suffered hundreds of times.
11 In the meantime, the current rules are then
12 Federally enforceable, even though ARB has repealed them.
13 As an alternative to the SIP revision process in
14 this unique instance, ARB and the fuels industry could
15 request a simple statement from EPA to the effect that EPA
16 will not take actions to enforce the requirement.
17 This fall and winter, once the Board has rescinded
18 this, this could come from an exercise of enforcement
19 discretion, or we think it could also come from interpreting
20 the Clean Air Act as not requiring the EPA.
21 Section 211 M6, of the Clean Air Act states that
22 nothing in Section 211 M, which established the Clean Air Act
23 requirements for Wintertime Gasoline Oxygenate Programs in CO
24 nonattainment areas, shall be interpreted as requiring an
25 oxygenated gasoline program in any area which is in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
114
1 attainment for CO.
2 It contains a narrow assumption that in areas
3 designated to attainment of the carbon monoxide standard,
4 which is the situation that we are dealing with now, and I
5 quote, the requirements of the subsection shall remain in
6 effect to the extent that such program is necessary to
7 maintain some standard thereafter.
8 You have the issue of keeping enough provisions in
9 the regulations to maintain the CO standard, even once you
10 are designated attainment.
11 The staff report clearly states that there is no
12 need for the Winter Oxygenate Program in the 10 redesignated
13 areas for recision.
14 You are adopting the staff's conclusions as part of
15 your findings in your adoption of the Resolution today.
16 Therefore, ARB is today determining that the
17 Program is not required. EPA should not stand in the way of
18 refiners beginning to comply immediately upon the completion
19 of the California rescission process.
20 We have invited ARB to share this interpretation of
21 the law with EPA in hopes of attaining immediate EPA
22 concurrence.
23 We are probably a little bit optimistic. We also,
24 we wrote this yesterday -- we also asked the ARB to take all
25 of their steps to attain EPA approval so that a rescission
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
115
1 can take place as soon as possible.
2 We suggest that you include specific authorization
3 and direction to the Executive Officer to promptly take all
4 actions which are appropriate to obtain EPA's approval.
5 We and the ARB both need EPA's approval that the
6 rescission take effect immediately. As soon as we receive
7 official authorization from ARB, or if EPA approves, we can
8 rely on your rescission and supply significant quantities of
9 nonoxygenated gasoline for sale in Northern California
10 regions not covered by the Federal RFP rules.
11 In closing, we wish to applaud the Board's support
12 for allowing more options in oxygenated use, including
13 support from the Bilbury/Feinstein bills, and the action
14 proposed to be taken today, while a very important step to
15 these actions, well, one of several that need to be to taken
16 for Chevron to be able to fulfill our goal.
17 Thank you. I will happy to entertain your
18 questions.
19 I gave to the Clerk a short letter with some
20 suggested letters. At your discretion you can include it in
21 your Board Resolution.
22 Since I got here, of course, I have seen the
23 proposed Resolution, and the proposed Resolution, I must say,
24 goes a long way to satisfy my concerns, but I don't think it
25 goes all the way, but I do appreciate the Board's and staff's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
116
1 attempts to try to get the rest of these paperwork issues
2 dealt with as quickly as possible.
3 If they can be done, within a week Chevron can
4 start blending gasoline for Northern California.
5 We are now shipping gasoline into the Northern
6 California region pursuant to the winter oxygen rules with
7 oxygenated fuel because we find that demand.
8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, this will allow you to
9 produce it without oxygen?
10 MR. JESSEL: This would allow us to back out again,
11 as much of a winter season as we have available for us to do
12 that.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, you would argue that that's
14 why you need us to take action today?
15 MR. JESSEL: That's correct.
16 The sooner it happens, and the paperwork process is
17 completed, the Secretary of State filing and the EPA,
18 whatever EPA has to do, then we can rely on that, begin to
19 rescind the requirement.
20 In the Resolution before you, it does a couple --
21 it does one very important thing, it says that the staff
22 should work very hard to get the SIP approval through EPA,
23 and we certainly applaud that.
24 What I think we have an opportunity to do is
25 support, explore some other ways of getting to the same
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
117
1 point, at least temporarily to make this effective this
2 winter season, and that is why we are suggesting a little bit
3 different language in your Board Resolution to allow for
4 exploration of other avenues.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right.
6 Any questions?
7 Ms. Rakow.
8 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Yes.
9 Do you have any knowledge of EPA working, or coming
10 out with an approval, or -- quickly, in any case, previously?
11 MR. JESSEL: We talked to EPA yesterday in trying
12 to prepare this testimony, and they seemed very open to
13 moving through the process as quickly as they can.
14 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: What in their minds is
15 quickly?
16 MR. JESSEL: That's something you have to ask EPA,
17 but we only have their history to go by.
18 They can work in months when they want to move
19 quickly. Their processing if they go as fast as they can
20 will take the rest of this winter oxygenate season.
21 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Not meet the October first.
22 MR. JESSEL: No, it will not be October first.
23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Jessel.
24 Tom Koehler, Janet Hathaway and then Catherine
25 Witherspoon.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
118
1 MR. KOEHLER: My name is Tom Koehler, representing
2 the Ethanol Industry today.
3 We support the -- what is before you, as far as the
4 inclusion of 3.5 percent oxygen.
5 We feel that it is, indeed, a small step to get
6 more flexibility. There are other things that need to be
7 done to allow ethanol to fully compete in the market place.
8 Some of those things include the inclusion of a
9 carbon monoxide as ozone precursor in the predictive model,
10 the calibration of the predictive model to more accurately
11 reflect real world emissions; these are all things that I
12 believe staff will be working on, and an inclusion of an
13 evaporative emission model that gives flexibility for RVP.
14 Also, I think it is important to know that while we
15 are revisiting some of these issues, there is one issue which
16 hasn't been addressed in the workshops and work to date,
17 which is the inclusion of a greenhouse gas emission factor
18 for fuel.
19 Recently, Vice President Gore and EPA announced
20 that climate change is a very serious air quality issue,
21 because, as you all know, when temperature rises, more ozone
22 is created.
23 So, I would urge the Board to direct staff to
24 include greenhouse gas emissions as part of fuel parameters
25 in the future.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
119
1 I would also comment that the ethanol industry has
2 always risen to the occasion to provide the supply for the
3 demand, and the industry is poised to do that here in
4 California.
5 So, going to 3.5 would make it more economical for
6 refiners today to use ethanol in the wintertime, certainly,
7 and quite frankly, in response, Chair, to your leadership
8 issue, there is no reason why refiners could not use ethanol
9 in the wintertime today, and I would obviously encourage
10 that.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Thank you.
12 I appreciate your industry's continued interest in
13 this matter, and I know you guys have had the nose pressed
14 against the glass on this for a long time, and I wanted to
15 acknowledge that.
16 MR. KOEHLER: Yeah, and we continue to appreciate
17 working with you.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ms. Hathaway, you checked in with
19 the Clerk?
20 MS. HATHAWAY: I have checked in with the Clerk
21 now, so --
22 My name is Janet Hathaway, and I am representing
23 the Natural Resources Defense Council.
24 I just wanted to say there is only one concern that
25 we have with this proposal, and it could be separated from
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
120
1 the rest of the proposal and held until December.
2 Our concern is about this allowing 3.5 percent
3 oxygen content, because there is data that ARB now has that
4 suggests that that will increase ozone forming potential.
5 We do support what Al Jessel was talking about,
6 which is getting rid of the minimum oxygen content.
7 We do think that is not necessary, and that would
8 be beneficial to do right now.
9 The part that is problematic is increasing the
10 potential that you have, ozone forming content, and that is
11 something that you really shouldn't take up now until you do
12 have that data before you, which would be probably December,
13 and at that time, making the decision to go to 3.5 with the
14 caveat that if it is increasing, the ozone forming potential,
15 that ethanol blend will have to be done with a sub RVP
16 gasoline, so that you don't have the increase in RVP, would
17 make sense.
18 So, our suggestion to you is if you could separate
19 those issues and hold it until December, the process would
20 make more sense and you would not have the potential on that
21 if in December the Board looks different because we have a
22 new Governor, and with all due respect to you, I hope you
23 continue to be here, but who knows what December will bring.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I don't think he gets to
25 reappoint until January, Janet.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
121
1 MS. HATHAWAY: If you could hold this so that the
2 decision is made simultaneously, it would make sense.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Not that you need to hear it, but
4 I will, this Board is going to be doing its job up until
5 there are changes, and we are not going to be worried about
6 political calendars, but I appreciate that word of caution.
7 All right. Now, Mike, add that to your list, we
8 are going to come back to it, explain that to us.
9 All right. Ms. Witherspoon, you are the last
10 witness on this issue.
11 Is there anyone else?
12 MS. WITHERSPOON: Chairman Dunlap, and Members.
13 Catherine Witherspoon, representing today the American
14 Methanol Institute.
15 I appreciate the consternation that many of the
16 Board Members are feeling about this Item, because I felt the
17 same way when the written staff report came out and there was
18 disclosed, pretty much for the first time, that we had the
19 baggage of a volatility exemption with this rulemaking the
20 staff is considering today.
21 As Janet indicated, there really is only one
22 controversial item in the mixture of staff's proposals, and
23 it is the three and a half percent oxygen cap being raised
24 without simultaneously making the finding with respect to the
25 ozone impacts.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
122
1 All the other pieces of your proposal could proceed
2 if the Board wished to take a small step forward, and I
3 believe all of the other industry witnesses today indicated
4 to you that they would be beneficial when the rescission, the
5 changing of the minimum and the racing fuel, the rest of it,
6 is not problematic.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good.
8 Any questions?
9 Good to see you back, Catherine.
10 Mr. Oulrey, I owe you an apology.
11 I always go to the Ombudsman earlier in the
12 process. I apologize.
13 Could you give us update on how this Item came to
14 come before us?
15 MR. OULREY: Sure.
16 Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Board, as you
17 heard from staff, the proposal before you today was an issue
18 that was initiated by concerns of varying MTBE use in fuels
19 and by requests from the Western States Petroleum Association
20 to develop technical changes to the California Reformulated
21 Gasoline Regulations.
22 To prepare for today's proposal, between March and
23 June of 1998, staff conducted two workshops, four
24 consultation meetings, seven technical subcommittee meetings
25 along with numerous one-on-one phone conversations with the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
123
1 effected stakeholders.
2 Active participants included WSPA, California
3 Independent Oil Manufacturers Association, major gasoline
4 producers, including, Chevron, TOSCO, Mobil, Exxon, Arco,
5 Kern Oil, UnoCal, Paramount Petroleum, the Oxygenated Fuels
6 Association, Renewable Fuels Association, American Automobile
7 Manufacturers Association, major auto manufacturers,
8 including GM, Toyota, Honda and Chrysler, and environmental
9 groups, including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources
10 Defense Council, or I'm sorry, NRDC, Natural Resources
11 Defense Fund, California Energy Commission, California Trade
12 and Commerce Agency and Assemblywoman Deborah Bowen's Office.
13 All the meetings were announced on the ARB Website
14 and by notices mailed to 1800 people who have been interested
15 in past issues concerning ARB's fuels regulations.
16 The initial statement of reasons in support of the
17 proposal, including the proposed amendments, was also posted
18 on the Website and then mailed to the same list.
19 Other stakeholders notified of the staff's activity
20 include the Engine Manufacturers Association, State Water
21 Resources Board, Cal EPA's Board, Departments and Offices and
22 the U.S. EPA.
23 Staff conducted an extensive outreach to
24 stakeholders to identify all potential issues and to promote
25 participation by all the parties that may be interested in or
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
124
1 affected by the recommendations before you.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Thank you for your
3 patience, Bruce.
4 Written comments, Peter, do you want to summarize
5 those, or Dean?
6 MR. SIMEROTH: Mr. Chairman, all the written
7 comments we have had representatives address except for one
8 letter from the American Lung Association.
9 The letter is dated May twenty-first, and it is
10 actually addressing the workshop that we held on June fifth.
11 It is urging us to preserve the benefits of the
12 Program in consideration of changes.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. There is some
14 confusion on this, Mike. It has been compounded a little
15 bit.
16 MR. SCHEIBLE: We made diesel exhaust too easy.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah, how could it be that diesel
18 was easier than this one?
19 Let me lead into this. There is some confusion up
20 here. I am confused.
21 So, what I would like you to do is sort through
22 this, weave through this, Mike, and I want you to answer some
23 questions.
24 Also, the environmentalists pose a concern, and
25 it's been amplified. The WSPA representatives talked about,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
125
1 you know, this is meaningful for them, it allows them to have
2 some more flexibility, etcetera, but -- I guess at some point
3 I want you to address why we shouldn't delay doing this whole
4 thing until December until it gets sorted out.
5 So, I will look for you to explain the logic there.
6 MR. SCHEIBLE: Okay. I believe that for the
7 purposes of discussion, we should split -- the Board should
8 split its discussion into two separate proposals that are
9 before you.
10 I will deal with, which I think is the easiest one
11 first. We propose to eliminate those areas that do not need
12 the CO reductions to maintain attainment of the minimum
13 oxygenate requirement.
14 I think that all the witnesses supported that, and
15 the issue was, how fast can you do this and get Federal
16 approval, and there is clearly some benefits --
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Let me stop you there.
18 Is there a consensus on that?
19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes.
20 I just have a question that the wording that was
21 offered by Mr. Jessel, how do you see that?
22 MR. SCHEIBLE: We reviewed that, and it is
23 acceptable to us to include that in the Resolution.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. So we have consensus on
25 the easy part. Okay.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
126
1 Kathleen, do you want us to deal with that now, or
2 how do you want us to deal with this?
3 MS. WALSH: Well, I think it would probably be
4 better to move ahead and consider the second issue that Mike
5 is going to discuss.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Go ahead, Mike.
7 MR. SCHEIBLE: Okay. On the second issue, what
8 staff has proposed is that we make the change now to allow up
9 to 3.5 percent oxygen content in gasoline.
10 When we do that, we acknowledge that we have an
11 obligation to come to you and make the finding, will this,
12 when coupled with the other provisions of law, lead to an
13 increase in ozone forming emissions.
14 The risk you run is not that we don't make that
15 finding, we make that finding, we either find it, if there is
16 an increase and there is no RVP allowance allowed because
17 that process takes it away, when we find that there is no
18 increase, in which case it is okay to do it.
19 The only risk is that we don't come to the Board
20 and we don't complete that process. Under that situation,
21 then we have changed the reg and people can avail themselves
22 of that, and we haven't resolved the issue.
23 Our promise to the Board was that we come and do
24 that in December and complete it, so that was why we proposed
25 it the way that we.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
127
1 The Board has a second option, which is to say, we
2 don't want to run that risk. We want to delay our action on
3 that part of the staff proposal, and say, staff come back to
4 us when you are ready to make the finding, and we will do
5 both at once, and that I think is the choice.
6 If you are uncomfortable with the staff
7 recommendation, then you can go to the second choice, which
8 is you say you want to eliminate running that risk by
9 combining the two items.
10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Now, who -- the later
11 option was that we delay until December.
12 MR. SCHEIBLE: Right.
13 But the downside of that is that certain fuel
14 producers could take advantage of the increased oxygen
15 content in a way that doesn't hurt air quality in the
16 interim.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: By building the sub RVP fuel,
18 which Ms. Hathaway suggested.
19 MR. SCHEIBLE: Or in the wintertime when there is
20 not an RVP constraint using a higher ethanol content because
21 the economics of it work out.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Bill, you and Ron.
23 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Part one is easy. I like
24 the second part of part two.
25 I personally like the idea of waiting.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
128
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You have to hit the button there.
2 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: You've enunciated my
3 position very well in the second part of part two.
4 I am in favor of waiting until the information is
5 in and then having a look at it, and then making a more
6 informed determination.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Ron.
8 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I likewise feel comfortable
9 with that second option that he spelled out and being able to
10 take the first step also, separate it out.
11 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: I need some clarification on
12 the overwhelming advantage to adopt part two and part one
13 together, I mean, part two also, putting a 3.5 percent cap
14 now instead of waiting for the data in December.
15 MR. SCHEIBLE: I think the advantage is that it
16 would allow all fuel producers greater options in how they
17 blend oxygen.
18 In most of the country ethanol is blended at higher
19 than 2.7 percent, so it provides economic flexibility.
20 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: Mike, then if in December we
21 find that we have to rescind a potential action today,
22 doesn't that put those producers at a disadvantage that have
23 been working for three months trying to do something that
24 they are going to have to stop in December?
25 MR. SCHEIBLE: No, because in December if we make
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
129
1 the finding that there is an adverse effect on ozone because
2 of the RVP exemption, that does not rescind the 3.5 percent.
3 The fuel producers are allowed to blend to 3.5
4 percent. What they have to do is when they do that is do it
5 in a way that doesn't violate, doesn't exceed the 7 RVP
6 limit.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Kulakowski, could you
8 articulate one more time your view on that decoupling issue
9 as it relates to the two options that we have before us?
10 I would like to hear your recommendation.
11 MR. KULAKOWSKI: We were very careful to not
12 mention this part of the proposal in our testimony, and
13 advisedly so.
14 I really can't say anything as a representative of
15 the Association, other than maybe to point out the fact that
16 staff that, I think that there is not a November one date
17 attached to that proposal to ensure that the impacts don't
18 occur.
19 I can verify that we understand there is not a
20 unified position among all the producers about this
21 provision; therefore, WSPA does not have a position.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, I tried. You are welcome
23 to take your seat back there.
24 What do you want to do?
25 We have two or three of our colleagues feel
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
130
1 strongly about decoupling it and going with the second
2 option, which is delaying until December until it gets sorted
3 out, not taking the position to support the 3.5.
4 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: But we could take a position
5 on the first.
6 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I move that we rescind the
7 requirement for the winter oxygen in the CO attainment areas,
8 end of motion.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Let's articulate that.
10 MR. SCHEIBLE: It is to remove it in the areas that
11 have been redesignated as Federal attainment areas as
12 specified in the staff report and the timing as specified.
13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'll second the motion if
14 the maker would add the wording that -- in Mr. Jessel's
15 letter, which seemed to not trouble staff but might assist
16 them a bit.
17 MS. WALSH: Chairman Dunlap, if I might suggest, if
18 you want to go ahead and take a vote on this second issue, so
19 that you can convey to staff the Board's consensus, perhaps
20 what we could do is to take a break for lunch, we could make
21 changes to the Resolution, reflect it and bring it back.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That would be fine.
23 Why don't we do that. We will take a 35 minute
24 break for lunch. We will ask staff to come back with the
25 language reflecting the motion and the second that is before
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
131
1 us.
2 We will have some discussion. I will deal with
3 ex parte, and then we will move on. Okay.
4 We will reconvene at 1:00.
5 MS. WALSH: Chairman Dunlap, if I could ask, if you
6 would go ahead and have a vote on the motion that's before
7 you on the second issue, which would provide the direction to
8 staff to go ahead and do the --
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. That's fine.
10 We have a motion before us to --
11 You have to turn on your mike.
12 MR. JENNINGS: One more point of clarification,
13 which is I think the consensus is to have the Board adopt the
14 entire proposal except for raising the 3.5 cap, there were
15 some other cleanup elements that I don't think were
16 controversial.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: The Chair would entertain a
18 motion as stated by Counsel.
19 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: So moved.
20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I second.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It's moved, and seconded by
22 Dr. Friedman and Mrs. Riordan.
23 I will do a voice vote.
24 All of those in favor -- well, wait a minute, do I
25 need to do ex parte before we do that?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
132
1 All right. We don't.
2 All those in favor, say aye.
3 Any opposed?
4 All right. Very good.
5 We will come back and deal with this after lunch.
6 We will reconvene at 1:00.
7 (Thereupon the lunch recess was taken.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
133
1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N
2 --o0o--
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. I'm going to ask people to
4 take their seats.
5 Tom, is Mr. Luskatoff here?
6 What I think we are going to do is we are going to
7 deal with the Resolution, which is in typing, so it's going
8 to come back, those of you that are waiting on the earlier
9 Item.
10 So, we will have Mr. Luskatoff come and give his
11 presentation, which is Item 98-5-6, a Continuation of a
12 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption, Amendment and Repeal
13 of Regulations Regarding Certification Procedures and Test
14 Procedures for Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems.
15 This Item is a continuation of Item presented in
16 May of this year and involves revisions to the certification
17 and test procedures at gasoline dispensing facilities, bulk
18 plants, terminals and cargo tanks.
19 The vapor recovery procedures are periodically
20 updated to keep up with new technology. The last such update
21 occurred in 1996.
22 Mr. Cackette, would you introduce this brief Item
23 for us.
24 MR. CACKETTE: As you will recall, in May we
25 presented for your consideration a set of proposed
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
134
1 certification and test procedure revisions related to Stage
2 II Vapor Recovery Systems.
3 ARB certified Stage II equipment for use in
4 California and, in fact, we certified it for use in almost
5 all of the nation.
6 Stage II is the term we use for the pollution
7 control refueling nozzles that you see at gas stations, the
8 things that have the bellows on it, more recently the one's
9 that do not have the bellows on it.
10 The need for changes in certification test
11 procedure relates in part to the fact that the 1998 new cars,
12 and subsequent model new cars, have an on-board vapor
13 recovery system on them, and it's basically a system which
14 competes with the Stage II System to collect the gasoline
15 refueling vapors.
16 What we presented to you in May as largely a
17 technical revision to test procedures turned out to have
18 significant implications that we had not fully explored.
19 As suggested by the testimony, these seemingly
20 minor certification and test procedure changes could require
21 wide spread replacement of Stage II equipment at service
22 stations at considerable cost.
23 Furthermore, it was pointed out that the
24 interaction of the Stage II equipment with these new cars
25 which have the on-board vapor recovery system could cause
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
135
1 significant increases in emissions and there were ways to
2 remedy this.
3 Now, we were aware of these issues and, in fact, we
4 have had two research projects underway for some time to
5 quantify impacts of refueling these new, what we call, ORVR
6 equipped vehicles, and we have also completed, in cooperation
7 with the districts, a field survey of existing vapor recovery
8 equipment using these new test procedures that we have
9 developed, and the survey revealed that there was a
10 significant fraction of the bellowless type, the one's
11 without the boot on them, the vapor recovery equipment that
12 was not capturing refueling vapors properly and this was
13 causing excess emissions.
14 So, what we failed to do in May was to reach out to
15 all the stakeholders and address the larger picture of
16 overall Stage II Vapor Recovery System operation and
17 efficiency.
18 Since May, we have met several times with
19 stakeholders. We have a group formed which includes the oil
20 industry, vapor recovery equipment manufacturers, the local
21 districts and automobile manufacturers, and we believe that
22 we could have turned what appeared to be a disagreement over
23 test procedures into a new opportunity to reduce refueling
24 emissions above and beyond what is occurring now.
25 This could, in the end, result in new Stage II
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
136
1 Vapor Recovery equipment being installed at service stations.
2 It could result in new diagnostic equipment being
3 installed at service stations, so that when the system is not
4 working right, the people will be alerted to that.
5 It could result in other program improvements that
6 will further reduce emissions in California.
7 As you might guess from the breadth of the issues
8 and the implications here, it is going to take us a while
9 longer to collect and analyze all the necessary data, perform
10 cost effective assessments and work out the details with many
11 of the stakeholders.
12 We will be able to return to you with our
13 recommendations for this more global look at Stage II Vapor
14 Recovery in the first half of 1999.
15 In the meantime, we are proposing today that you
16 adopt the other vapor recovery certification and procedure
17 changes for which there are no outstanding issues that we are
18 aware of.
19 So, at this time, I would like to turn the
20 presentation over to Cindy Castronovo, of the Monitoring and
21 Laboratory Division.
22 MS. CASTRONOVO: Good afternoon, Chairman Dunlap,
23 Members of the Board.
24 As indicated by Mr. Cackette, we presented 2 new
25 and 13 revised procedures at the May Board meeting.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
137
1 The testimony focused on the proposed On-Board
2 Refueling Vapor Recovery, or ORVR, test procedure, which has
3 been removed from today's proposal along with one other test
4 procedure.
5 Today we will present the remainder of the original
6 May procedures, which consist of one new test procedure and
7 twelve revised procedures.
8 We plan to present the two postponed procedures at
9 a 1999 Board meeting as part of our new enhanced Vapor
10 Recovery Program.
11 I will now discuss our proposed revisions to the
12 vapor recovery procedures. These test procedures are used by
13 the Air Resources Board to certify vapor recovery systems,
14 and some are used by districts for ensuring compliance with
15 performance specifications.
16 We are requesting a temporary exemption for airport
17 refueler cargo tanks to allow them to conduct their annual
18 leak decay test safely and legally.
19 A new test procedure, the Tie-Tank Test, was
20 requested by the districts to ensure that the gasoline
21 dispensing facility underground storage tanks are connected
22 correctly.
23 Finally, we proposed several improvements and
24 clarifications to the existing test procedures, which result
25 primarily from both agency and private test requirements.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
138
1 These revisions do not increase the stringency of
2 the procedures and some changes result from harmonization
3 with Federal requirements.
4 We propose a temporary exemption for airport
5 refuelers. An airport refueler is defined as a cargo tank
6 which has a total capacity no greater than 2,000 gallons,
7 exclusively transports av gas and jet fuel and is not
8 licensed for public highway use.
9 As part of their annual certification, all cargo
10 tanks subject to vapor recovery regulations must undergo a
11 Pressure Decay Test to check for leaks.
12 However, for safety reasons, gasoline vapors must
13 be removed before this test is conducted. The test procedure
14 prohibits venting vapors to atmosphere, and most cargo tank
15 operators can satisfy this requirement by venting to a
16 loading rack control system, or loading with diesel fuel just
17 before the test.
18 Airport refuelers do not leave the airports and do
19 not meet the Department of Transportation or Motor Vehicle
20 Code requirements to travel on public roads.
21 They cannot switch fuel with diesel due to the
22 danger of av gas contamination, thus airport refuelers must
23 seek various relief to vent emissions legally before the
24 test.
25 This proposed exemption will expire. At least two
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
139
1 ARB certified mobile vapor processors are available.
2 These processors would travel to the airports, and
3 thus could be used to degas the airport refuelers of vapors
4 on-site.
5 Two mobile degassers were contacted by staff. They
6 both use internal combustion engines to destroy hydrocarbons
7 transferred from treated sources.
8 They have successfully purged hundreds of
9 underground and above ground tanks at dispensing facilities.
10 At least one of these companies is already
11 permitted by the South Coast AQMD, and is very interested in
12 providing airport cargo tank degassing services.
13 Staff will work with interested companies to
14 facilitate certification of mobile degassers.
15 This slide summarizes the remainder of the proposed
16 revisions.
17 The Tie-Tank Test is a proposed new test procedure
18 to check for proper underground plumbing configurations at
19 gasoline dispensing facilities.
20 This procedure was requested by several air
21 pollution control districts to assist with their inspection
22 and permitting of gasoline dispensing facilities.
23 Other improvements include clarifications to the
24 test procedures as requested by private testers, districts
25 and ARB staff, who use these procedures.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
140
1 Some test method issues have not yet been resolved,
2 including the Pressure Decay Test used by districts for
3 compliance purposes.
4 Although we are clarifying the language at the
5 present Pressure Decay Test, we are committed to working with
6 the districts to further evaluate this particular test method
7 and to develop methods that will best ensure ongoing
8 compliance of vapor recovery systems.
9 Two workshops were held to solicit input from
10 affected parties before the May Board meeting. Updates on
11 these procedures were also provided at an ORVR working group
12 meeting and a recent workshop on enhanced vapor recovery.
13 The staff would like to acknowledge the assistance
14 provided by the CAPCOA Vapor Recovery Technical Committee,
15 particularly the Bay Area AQMD and San Diego APCD, who
16 provided the original drafts of some of the proposed
17 procedures.
18 We also appreciate the comments and suggestions
19 from the equipment manufacturers, independent tester and
20 industry associations.
21 Although the airport refueler exemption will allow
22 airport tankers to continue operation for now, there are
23 costs associated with the eventual termination of the
24 exemption.
25 Depending on the type of system used to control
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
141
1 hydrocarbon emissions, certification costs for the mobile
2 degassers are expected to be in the range of $2,000 to
3 $6,000.
4 Once two mobile degassers are certified, airport
5 refuelers will be subject to costs estimated at $500 to
6 $1,000 to degas a cargo tank.
7 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Per year or per degasser?
8 MS. CASTRONOVO: We estimate hydrocarbon emissions
9 of a tenth of a ton per year as a result of the airport
10 refueler exemption.
11 We emphasize, again, that this is a temporary
12 exemption that will expire once two mobile degassers are
13 certified.
14 In summary, I would like to point out the
15 consequences of not adopting these proposed revisions.
16 Denying the airport refueler exemption will force
17 these cargo tanks to discontinue operation or operate in
18 violation of the law.
19 If the method revisions are not adopted, some
20 confusion will remain regarding method requirements.
21 As I close my presentation, I would like to draw
22 your attention to the package of recommended 15-day changes,
23 which has been provided to you.
24 Many of these comments were distributed by mail and
25 the ARB Web Page in July. Additional changes have been added
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
142
1 since July regarding the airport refueler cargo tanks
2 eligible for the venting exemption and harmonization of cargo
3 tank Pressure Test limits with Federal requirements.
4 All of these revisions will be distributed through
5 our mailing list and through the Website for a minimum of a
6 15-day comment period.
7 In conclusion, we ask that you approve the
8 certification and test procedure changes. In addition, we
9 will return to you in 1999 with a proposed revision to the
10 Vapor Recovery Program, which will address the issue shown on
11 this slide, in which we will provide additional reductions in
12 emissions.
13 As shown here, we will propose ORVR compatibility
14 to ensure there is no loss in emission control efficiency
15 when refueling ORVR vehicles, propose Program improvements,
16 including warranty and liability clarification along with
17 in-service performance issues and will propose in-station
18 diagnostics to alert the facility operator of vapor recovery
19 equipment malfunction.
20 This concludes my presentation.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you.
22 Mr. Oulrey, do you want to address the process
23 prior to today, where which this Item came to the Board.
24 MR. OULREY: Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
25 Board. The proposal before you today was first considered
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
143
1 during the May Board meeting.
2 At that time, the proposal addressed On-Board Vapor
3 Recovery, or ORVR, Enhanced Vapor Recovery, EVR, as well as
4 the Cargo Tank Vapor Recovery Test method changes, which are
5 before you today.
6 Following the May meeting, approximately 800
7 stakeholders were notified by letter on July fourteenth, that
8 all items pertaining to On-Board Vapor Recovery and Enhanced
9 Vapor Recovery had been postponed until the December Board
10 meeting.
11 Additional opportunity for comments on today's Item
12 were provided through response to the July fourteenth letter,
13 and through two ORVR/EVR workshops held July first, and
14 August eleventh, of this year.
15 No comments on today's Item were received as a
16 result of these opportunities. The only comments received
17 since the May Board meeting were verbal comments from CAPCOA,
18 which staff intends to address during the 15-day comment
19 period.
20 Staff currently are taking a very proactive
21 approach with stakeholders for the development of the
22 ORVR/ERV items.
23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Thank you.
24 Do any of the Board Members have questions?
25 Yes, Dr. Friedman.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
144
1 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: With respect to this issue
2 of the temporary exemption for the airport refueler, we have
3 a letter in our file, you capped it at 2,000 gallons, and
4 there is a letter in the file speaking about a few of these
5 refuelers for forest fires that go up to 5,000; do you have
6 an objection, is that within the parameters of what you are
7 looking for, since the exemption is temporary anyhow?
8 MS. CASTRONOVO: Yeah, I was going to discuss that
9 when we came to the summary of the comment letters.
10 We did get a letter from Mr. Wilson, of Corporate
11 Aircraft in Fresno, that requested that we increase the
12 gallonage from 2,000 to 5,000 gallons, and that we agreed to
13 make that change because those larger tanks are used to
14 support firefighting efforts in the State, and it is a part
15 of the 15-day change package.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Good.
17 If there aren't any other questions, we will go to
18 the witness list.
19 There isn't one.
20 Then we will go to the -- any written comments, do
21 you want to summarize those?
22 MS. CASTRONOVO: That was it, the one letter from
23 Mr. Wilson.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. That will conclude
25 the public testimony.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
145
1 Cindy, do you want to say anything about the other
2 letter?
3 MS. CASTRONOVO: I can't.
4 I don't think this made it into our letter file,
5 but we did meet with these people from Kinder Morgan at the
6 last Board meeting in May, and we did make the changes they
7 are requesting regarding the PV valves, and those are in the
8 15-day package.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right.
10 Mr. Cackette, do you have anything further that you
11 want to say?
12 MR. CACKETTE: No, nothing else.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. I will now officially
14 close the record on this Item.
15 The record will be reopened when the 15-day notice
16 of public availability is issued. Written or oral comments
17 received after this hearing date, but before the 15-day
18 notice is issued will not be accepted as part of the official
19 record on this Item.
20 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment
21 period, the public may submit written comments on the
22 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to
23 in the Final Statement of Reasons for the regulation.
24 Do we have any ex parte communications to report?
25 All right. We have before us Resolution 98-27.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
146
1 The Chair would entertain a motion and a second to
2 adopt the staff proposal with the assurance that this 15-day
3 notice package is going to deal with those issues as staff
4 has outlined.
5 Is there a motion?
6 Moved by Mr. Parnell. Seconded by Mr. Roberts.
7 Any discussion?
8 Very good. We will proceed with a voice vote on
9 Resolution 98-27.
10 All those in favor, say aye.
11 Any opposed?
12 Very good. The motion carries.
13 The Resolution has been approved.
14 Mr. Luskatoff, would you like to, or Mr. Cackette,
15 would you like to introduce the brief next Item, Stationary
16 Source Test Methods, which, of course, are going to reflect
17 sound technical information, accurate measurement of source
18 emissions, State law requires us to adopt these procedures
19 and this is part of your continuing effort to do the best job
20 possible.
21 Tom will introduce this for us.
22 MR. CACKETTE: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap, and
23 Members of the Board. Since the early 1980's, the Board has
24 adopted 61 different stationary source or vapor recovery test
25 methods.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
147
1 These methods are used to determine compliance with
2 district rules and also to evaluate the effectiveness of air
3 pollution control equipment, support control measure
4 development and develop emission inventories.
5 Most of ARB methods are developed to support
6 district regulations and the ARB State regulations, such as
7 the Air Toxic Control Measures, the Air Toxics Hot Spots
8 Programs.
9 The ARB methods are also used for research studies
10 where using a consistent measurement technique is always
11 desirable.
12 During preparation of proposed revised methods, the
13 staff has consulted interested parties, including EPA,
14 districts, source test contractors and analytical
15 laboratories.
16 The revisions were initially prompted by U.S. EPA
17 requests that the ARB upgrade its methods to be incorporated
18 in the State Implementation Plan.
19 Care has been taken to promote consistency with
20 U.S. EPA methods to avoid multiple test requirements for the
21 same pollutant in a facility.
22 Revised methods are not expected to increase the
23 cost of testing to any significant extent.
24 Once again, Cindy Castronovo, of the Monitoring
25 Laboratory Division, will present the Item to you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
148
1 MS. CASTRONOVO: Thank you, Mr. Cackette. In this
2 presentation I'll explain the reasons for our proposed
3 amendments for several of the ARB stationary source test
4 methods.
5 We have proposed revisions to 20 of the ARB source
6 test methods, which are listed here. Methods 1 through 4 are
7 foundation methods for almost all the staff tests, providing
8 assessment of proper sampling locations, flow characteristics
9 and moisture content of the stack gas.
10 Methods 5-A through 11 determine particulate sulfur
11 compounds, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide emissions.
12 Methods 12 through 16-A measure lead fluoride and
13 reduce sulfur compounds. Method 17 is an in-stack filter
14 method.
15 Method 20 is for stationary gas turbines, and
16 Method 21 determines VOC compound leaks. These revisions
17 were triggered by a request from U.S. EPA Region 9 that we
18 review and modify our test methods to make them more
19 consistent with their U.S. EPA counterpart methods.
20 We took this opportunity to update older methods to
21 align them with improvements already included in more recent
22 methods.
23 We also discovered several errors in emissions
24 dating from when the methods were originally typed.
25 State law directs ARB to adopt test procedures to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
149
1 measure compliance with its nonvehicular emissions standards
2 and those of districts.
3 Since 1983, the Board has adopted 61 test
4 procedures for both criteria and toxic air pollutants. All
5 of the test methods proposed for revision today are based on
6 similar U.S. EPA methods.
7 The districts also have authority to adopt their
8 own test procedures, and some of the larger districts, such
9 as the South Coast and Bay Area, have opted to do so.
10 One downside of relying on the non Air Resources
11 Board Method is that revisions might be made that diminish
12 the quality of the emission results from a California
13 perspective.
14 That is why ARB has chosen to adopt methods that
15 are very similar to U.S. EPA methods that include provisions
16 where necessary to meet California source test needs.
17 Another advantage of adopting our own methods is to
18 provide California districts and testers with timely
19 decisions on requests to modify test methods.
20 Due to specific source configurations, it may be
21 necessary to request a change in conducting a test.
22 For example, process conditions may be of such
23 short duration that minimum sampling times cannot be met.
24 Requests for a site-specific change on an U.S. EPA
25 method must be forwarded to U.S. EPA staff for review and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
150
1 approval.
2 Finally, State law requires that ARB methods be
3 used as default methods in district rules where no other
4 method is specified.
5 Periodic revisions to stationary source test
6 procedures are expected and desirable. As technology
7 changes, improvements can be made in the existing procedures.
8 Also, more recent attention to quality assurance to
9 assess dependability of emission results has led to
10 additional requirements in test procedures.
11 This slide summarizes the development of the
12 proposed test method revisions. A workshop was held on April
13 fourteenth, which elicited very few comments.
14 More extensive written comments were received from
15 the U.S. EPA and the San Diego APCD. These comments were
16 then used to improve the revised procedures.
17 The latest revisions were mailed with the Board
18 meeting notice and staff report to all districts, interested
19 parties, including staff testers, on our mailing list.
20 The proposed revised procedures have also been
21 posted on the ARB Webpage. Many changes were made in each of
22 the revised procedures, most of the significant changes were
23 due to harmonizing the ARB method with the most current U.S.
24 EPA counterpart.
25 These included new calibration checks and other
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
151
1 quality assurance improvements. Dozens of minor editorial
2 changes were also made to the revised methods.
3 A significant change made to all of the revised
4 methods has been removal of district authority to permit
5 modifications to an ARB method.
6 The current methods allow either the district or
7 the ARB to approve test method modifications. A similar
8 change was proposed and adopted when our last stationary test
9 method update was presented to you in August of 1996.
10 Some districts have expressed concerns regarding
11 this change, which we will address on the next two slides.
12 We believe limiting approval of deviations to test
13 procedures at the State level provides a more consistent
14 application of the procedures throughout the State.
15 Although some districts are fortunate to have
16 source test experts among their staff, differences can occur
17 between experts on whether a method modification is
18 acceptable, and because data collected at one source might
19 someday be used to evaluate a similar source in another
20 district, it is important that measurement techniques be
21 comparable.
22 Another advantage to having all of the requests
23 come to ARB is that we can identify if changes are warranted.
24 For example, numerous requests to modify the method
25 for ethylene oxide measurement led to recent changes in the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
152
1 ETO test procedure.
2 The districts concern is whether ARB can respond
3 quickly to method modification requests. Our records
4 indicate that tests that are requested to revise the
5 procedures are rare, less than 10 per year.
6 Staff already handled these requests within one
7 day, if necessary, to avoid delays to a test team in the
8 field, by giving a verbal approval, followed by a letter.
9 Many ARB methods outline pretest plan requirements
10 that should identify any potential problems in advance.
11 Harmonization of ARB and U.S. EPA methods allows
12 either method to be used to satisfy the test requirement for
13 a given pollutant.
14 This is important to avoid having a source pay for
15 two source tests for the same pollutant to meet State and
16 Federal requirements.
17 The additional quality assurance requirements may
18 result in some small cost increases to some testers.
19 Most testers are already equipped to conduct both
20 U.S. EPA and ARB test procedures, and thus would not incur
21 additional costs.
22 One tester estimated costs for audit samples, a
23 common QA measure, might run about $60 a month, but
24 emphasized that it is already current practice for most
25 testers.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
153
1 To summarize, we have prepared revisions to 20 test
2 procedures to harmonize ARB methods with current U.S. EPA
3 requirements.
4 We have included additional improvements based on
5 staff's detailed review. We have changed all the revised
6 procedures to reflect that the ARB Executive Officer approval
7 is required on a case-by-case basis for test method
8 deviation.
9 In conclusion, we request that you approve the
10 proposed revisions. Staff has addressed and resolved the
11 concerns raised during the outreach process.
12 These method revisions are expected to result in
13 minimal, if any, increases in source test costs.
14 This concludes my presentation.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you.
16 Mr. Ombudsman, do you want to tell us about this
17 one, briefly?
18 MR. OULREY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
19 The staff proposal is the result of two years of
20 cooperation between ARB, U.S. EPA, local air districts staff
21 and other interested parties.
22 A public workshop was conducted in Sacramento, on
23 April 14, 1998, for all of the proposed method revisions
24 before you today.
25 Notice went to some 150 stakeholders, and a notice
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
154
1 was posted on our ARB Website. Detailed comments previously
2 received from U.S. EPA and from the San Diego Air Pollution
3 Control District were considered in revising the initial
4 draft revisions presented at the workshop, as well as scores
5 of telephone conversations and E-mails, and no concerns were
6 raised at that time.
7 In conclusion, it appears stakeholder involvement
8 in the development of this Item was reasonable and that all
9 is well with the proposed package before you today.
10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you.
11 Any of the Board Members have questions?
12 All right. Very good.
13 Any written -- we have no witnesses, is there any
14 written correspondence that we have on this?
15 MS. CASTRONOVO: Yeah, we received one E-mail from
16 Robert Whitenfeld, of Quaterra, Incorporated, who suggested
17 some modifications to our Method 12 that would allow updated
18 analytical techniques, and we have made his suggested changes
19 and included them in the 15-day package.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good.
21 Mr. Cackette, anything else that you want to add?
22 MR. CACKETTE: Nothing else, Mr. Chairman.
23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Thank you.
24 We will now close the record. However, the record
25 will be reopened when the 15-day notice of public
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
155
1 availability is issued.
2 Written or oral comments received after the hearing
3 date but before the 15-day notice is issued will not be
4 accepted as part of the official record on this Item.
5 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment
6 period, the public may submit written comments on the
7 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to
8 in the Final Statement of Reasons for the regulation.
9 Any ex parte communications we need to disclose?
10 All right. Very good.
11 We have before us Resolution 98-38, which contains
12 the staff recommendation.
13 Do I have a motion and a second to the staff
14 proposal?
15 BOARD MEMBER RAKOW: I so move.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ms. Rakow.
17 Seconded by Supervisor Patrick.
18 Any discussion?
19 All right. Very good.
20 We will proceed with a voice vote.
21 All those in favor, say aye.
22 Any opposed?
23 Very good. Thank you.
24 Bill, appreciate it. Tom, nice work.
25 Okay. We are going to take care of Dr. Holmes,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
156
1 Mr. Barnes items, and then we will come back.
2 Again, my apologies to those waiting on the fuels
3 Item. We will come back to that.
4 We are going to deal with the Research Screening
5 Committee Item first.
6 This is a public meeting to consider 98-9-5, to
7 consider appointments for the Research Screening Committee.
8 This statute creating the Board also authorized the
9 Board to appoint a Research Screening Committee to advise the
10 Board on its extramural research activities.
11 The Committee has nine members total, each
12 representing a scientific or technical discipline that is
13 relevant to review and advise on an air quality research
14 program.
15 We have been privileged over the years to have a
16 host of eminent scientists serve on this Committee.
17 As you know, the workload is significant and the
18 pay symbolic, at best. Their input has been invaluable to
19 the Board over the years.
20 Three excellent, extremely qualified candidates
21 have been assembled for the Board's consideration today.
22 We all have had an opportunity to review the
23 information on the candidates, and Dr. Holmes, if you
24 wouldn't mind, if you would just mention names and
25 disciplines, and then we will bring this to a conclusion.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
157
1 DR. HOLMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you said,
2 we have three names today that we believe are eligible and
3 certainly are willing to serve the Board on the Research
4 Screening Committee.
5 You have in your folders a summary of the
6 qualifications of these candidates. I will go through them
7 quickly for you.
8 Dr. John Balmes, is an Associate Professor of
9 Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
10 Dr. Catherine Koshland, is an Assistant Professor
11 of Environmental Health Sciences at UC Berkeley.
12 Dr. Forman Williams, is the Chairman of the
13 Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences at
14 UC San Diego.
15 We recommend these names for your consideration as
16 Members of the Screening Committee.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very Good.
18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I move approval, Mr.
19 Chairman.
20 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Second.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. There is a motion and
22 a second to move approval.
23 Do the Board Members have any questions or any
24 discussion on these?
25 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I would just like to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
158
1 comment. I read the full CV's and bibliographies, these are
2 really impressive people, who I think are going to contribute
3 very significantly to the screening process.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you.
5 Is there -- very good. We have no public
6 testimony. No one signed up.
7 Do we have any written comments?
8 All right. Very good.
9 We have a motion and a second to approve these
10 three eminently qualified professionals to serve on the
11 Research Screening Committee.
12 We will do the voice vote.
13 All those in favor, say aye.
14 Any opposed?
15 Very good. Thank you.
16 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: How many Members are there
17 now on the Committee?
18 DR. HOLMES: That brings it up to the statutorily
19 required nine.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good.
21 Why don't we go ahead, Dr. Holmes, why don't you
22 just sit, stay put.
23 Let's go back to the Item 98-37.
24 Ms. Walsh, why don't you take a minute and
25 reacquaint us where we left off.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
159
1 MS. WALSH: As we left, the Board had indicated a
2 desire to bifurcate, in effect, the proposal that the staff
3 had brought before you and to move ahead with a
4 noncontroversial part of that proposal, and on the second
5 issue, related to the oxygen limit, to go ahead and continue
6 that to the December meeting, at which time you will consider
7 a staff proposal, also to make a finding related to that
8 regulatory limit.
9 We have gone ahead in the lunch hour and the few
10 additional minutes that we took to make some revisions to the
11 proposed Resolution.
12 Tom Jennings of the Legal Office is prepared to
13 walk you through those briefly.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Tom, would you like
15 to do that now.
16 MR. JENNINGS: Yes. You have copies of the new
17 Resolution.
18 There aren't any changes before page four, because
19 the context in the staff's proposal didn't change.
20 I eliminated in the finding section at the bottom
21 of page four, the finding of the necessity of raising the
22 cap, and then I inserted on page five, the second, third,
23 fourth and fifth full paragraphs, contained the findings
24 regarding the possible emission impacts of raising the cap,
25 and I moved those in from the CEQA findings that had been a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
160
1 page or two later.
2 Then on the CEQA findings, page six, I deleted the
3 references to raising the cap. Then the key actions of the
4 Board, start at the bottom of page six, and then in the now
5 therefore be it resolved that they take action, in the second
6 line, it now says amending 2262.5 A and E, that deletes the
7 subsection B that contained the raising the cap.
8 On page seven, the second, be it further resolved,
9 is the one that Chevron wanted added, and then the third, be
10 it further resolved, postpones consideration on raising the
11 cap until our December Board meeting, and the following, be
12 it further resolved, directs the staff to present at that
13 Board meeting a report on the emissions impact of the RVP
14 exemption and a recommendation on whether the Board should
15 make the finding.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
17 Ms. Walsh, does that seem to capture what the Board
18 had directed the staff to develop?
19 MS. WALSH: Yes, Chairman Dunlap, I believe it
20 does.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
22 Dr. Friedman, does that do it for you?
23 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I just don't know how to
24 read lawyer language, but I think it does.
25 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Tom, would you go through
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
161
1 the second paragraph on page five?
2 MR. JENNINGS: This is the paragraph starting,
3 increasing the oxygen cap?
4 It says, increasing the oxygen cap as proposed by
5 staff would have a certain impact of --
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Are you reading verbatim what's
7 on there?
8 MR. JENNINGS: I will read it verbatim, increasing
9 the oxygen cap from 2.7 to 3.5 weight percent as proposed by
10 staff would permit the sale of gasoline containing 10 volume
11 percent ethanol as long it meets the predictive model
12 criteria, and such gasoline would be exempt from the RVP
13 standard and the reformulated gasoline regulations, unless
14 the Board makes the findings specified in 4383 OG.
15 So, that says what would happen if the Board was to
16 raise the cap from 2.7 to 3.5.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: But we are not doing that, so
18 explain to us how that explanation means that we are not
19 doing it?
20 Is it somewhere else in here?
21 MS. WALSH: What it's explaining is basically the
22 logic behind the Board's decision not to go ahead with that
23 part of the action today, saying that you've considered that,
24 you heard some concerns about the effect of that and that
25 with the possible emissions effect you want to wait until
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
162
1 December to see what those are going to be before you make a
2 final decision on that part.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Where's the other stuff that --
4 MR. JENNINGS: In terms of the findings on page
5 five, the fifth paragraph, in order to avoid possible
6 increases in the ozone forming potential of vehicular
7 emissions resulting from the RVP exemption, it is appropriate
8 to continue consideration of the proposed amendment of 2262.5
9 B, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, raising the
10 oxygen cap to the December 10, 1998 Board meeting, so that it
11 can be considered at the same time that the Board considers
12 whether to make the findings.
13 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: We all have the same
14 problem.
15 Why don't you, in parentheses, indicate that this
16 is Section 2262.5 B, because that is what you are deleting
17 later, at least make it clear that there is a segway to the
18 now therefore be it resolved.
19 MS. WALSH: We can make that change and make that
20 clarification.
21 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I read it the same way. I
22 think that would take care of it.
23 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: It made me nervous when I
24 read that. That's all.
25 It made me feel the same way.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
163
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Why don't you orally insert that
2 in that second paragraph.
3 MS. WALSH: A cross-reference to 2262.5 B, which is
4 the section which you are deferring action on.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. That seems to do it.
6 We have before us the modified, and modified again,
7 Resolution that incorporates our concern about the oxygenate
8 cap.
9 The Chair would entertain a motion after I ask if
10 anybody has any ex parte communications they need to
11 disclose.
12 I believe I have closed the record, but, Kathleen,
13 if you think I need to run through that again, I can.
14 MS. WALSH: You are closing the record on the part
15 of this proposal other than the adoption of 2262.5 B, because
16 that will be continued to the December meeting.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good.
18 In closing the record, since all written and oral
19 testimony and staff comments have been entered into the
20 record and the Board has not granted an extension of the
21 comment period, I am officially closing the record on this
22 portion of Agenda Item 98-9-2.
23 Written or oral comments received after the comment
24 period has been closed will not be accepted as part of the
25 official record on this Agenda Item.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
164
1 There is no ex parte that I am aware of. We have
2 before us this Resolution.
3 We have a motion and a second. Moved by Mr.
4 Parnell, seconded by Dr. Friedman.
5 Any further discussion that we need to have?
6 Very good. Then we will proceed with a voice vote.
7 All those in favor of approving Resolution 98-37,
8 say aye.
9 Any opposed?
10 Very good. The motion carries.
11 Thank you. Tom, thanks for working through this.
12 I appreciate it.
13 All right. That takes us to Tom, you and Dr.
14 Holmes and Mr. Barham, to talk about research proposals.
15 If I could find my file I will do justice to this
16 Item, 98-9-4. The next Item of business before the Board
17 today are these six research proposals.
18 Have all the Members of the Board had an
19 opportunity to review them?
20 Are there any additional concerns or comments by
21 Members of the Board?
22 If not, and if the Board is prepared to vote on
23 these Resolutions, we can move them.
24 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I just wanted to say that I
25 have reviewed these pretty comprehensively and did direct
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
165
1 some questions to the Division, including getting the total
2 package for further review, and I find them all quite
3 satisfactory.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Why don't we do this, just
5 take an extra minute, Bob, or John, why don't you just take
6 15 seconds on each and just describe, say, here is what it is
7 going to do, here is what the dollar amount is, just run
8 through all six, and then we will move on the Resolution.
9 Would you do that for us?
10 DR. HOLMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is
11 difficult to do this, but I will try.
12 Item one is a proposal from Southwest Research, a
13 demonstration of a fast-response onboard NOx sensor for
14 heavy-duty vehicles.
15 The investigator is Dan Pugner. The amount of
16 money, $348,133.
17 An important part of the SIP that was adopted last
18 year involves reductions of NOx from heavy-duty diesels.
19 This onboard NOx sensor, I think, will help us do
20 that.
21 Item two, research proposal from Automotive Testing
22 Laboratories in Southern California. Heavy-duty gasoline
23 truck evaporative emissions testing for emissions inventory,
24 $128,000,160.
25 We have evaporative emissions for automobiles and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
166
1 for light and medium-duty trucks. We don't have a
2 corresponding bid for heavy-duty gasoline trucks.
3 These are very important, and particularly in urban
4 areas, so we want to get hard data that will incorporate
5 these vehicles into our emission inventory.
6 Item three, from Dillingham Software Engineering,
7 Incorporated, the development of Hot Spots Analysis and
8 Reporting Program.
9 As you know, we have done inventory work on hot
10 spots around the State. We have done modeling. This add-on
11 to our existing modeling package would allow us to establish
12 iso-plots, if you will, of risk in the vicinity of a
13 particular source.
14 That's very important. We could get it right down
15 to the block or the street level using the Geographic
16 Information System.
17 Item four, University of California, Davis,
18 particulate air pollution and cardiovascular morbidity, PI is
19 Dr. Mary Hong. The amount of money is $199,480.
20 This project will rely on a very large database
21 that has been gathered by the National Institute of Health.
22 It will help us establish whether or not there is a linkage
23 between cardiovascular disease and exposure to particulate
24 matter and other pollutants.
25 Item five, from the U.S. Forest Service, the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
167
1 ambient ozone patterns and ozone injury risk to Ponderosa and
2 Jeffrey Pines in the Sierra Nevada, Michael Arvol and others.
3 The amount of money, $77,569.
4 These particular species of pine are the most
5 economically valuable to the timber industry in the State.
6 There is considerable concern that ozone damage in
7 the foothills and the Sierra are going to decrease the
8 productivity of these forests, which could eventually have a
9 major impact on the timber industry in our State.
10 Item six, a research proposal from Cal Poly, in San
11 Luis Obispo. This is a follow-up project to what we did
12 earlier to analyze the emissions from various kinds of
13 consumer products.
14 This project would add 40 more aerosol coatings to
15 that database. The amount of money is $28,885.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Dr. Holmes.
17 DR. HOLMES: Did that meet your specifications?
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You did quite well.
19 These projects are diverse.
20 I think, you know, I have said it time and again, I
21 know Supervisor Roberts is tired of hearing about it, but he
22 did quite a lot of work early in his tenure to educating us
23 to making sure we are getting overhead rates down and cost
24 effectiveness, and I feel good about where we are going.
25 We are policing ourselves well, as staff is, and I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
168
1 appreciate that. So, the Chair would entertain a motion to
2 approve Resolutions 98-39, 98-40, 98-41, 98-42, 98-43 and
3 98-44, which are the Research Proposals that Dr. Holmes just
4 ran through.
5 Is there a motion?
6 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: So moved.
7 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Second.
8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Moved by Dr. Friedman, and
9 seconded by Supervisor Patrick.
10 Any discussion that we need to have?
11 Very good. We will proceed with a voice vote.
12 All those in favor of these Resolutions, please say
13 aye.
14 Any opposed?
15 Very good. Thank you very much.
16 Okay. Open comment period.
17 This is the Item that we have had on our Agenda for
18 the last couple of years that provides for members of the
19 public to address the Board, although no formal Board action
20 may be taken, we will provide an opportunity for members of
21 the public to directly address the Board of items of interest
22 that do not appear on today's Agenda.
23 We are asking that each witness limit his or her
24 testimony to topics that are within the subject matter
25 jurisdiction of the Board to ensure that everyone has a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
169
1 chance to speak.
2 We are also asking that each witness limit his or
3 her testimony to no more than five minutes.
4 Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board?
5 Very good. No one signed up.
6 We will move to the last Item, that will be where
7 our Communications Director, Mr. Irvin, is going to present a
8 resolution to us on Pollution Prevention Week, and I believe,
9 Joe, you have one other item you want to share with us.
10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, if I could
11 make a quick comment when we finish this?
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You bet.
13 Joe, do you want to take just a moment and talk
14 about the genesis of Pollution Prevention Week and what this
15 resolution means.
16 MR. IRVIN: Sure thing, Mr. Chairman, and Members.
17 Pollution Prevention Week has been around for quite a few
18 years now, and that is the concept that we have heard, those
19 two words together, pollution prevention, that really signal
20 a new, and now really current way of applying the way that
21 manufacturing takes place and individuals take an approach to
22 limiting pollution from getting into the atmosphere and the
23 environment.
24 The local government commission has been charged in
25 recent years with overseeing California's efforts to educate
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
170
1 the public about what pollution prevention, or P2 is.
2 As part of that, certainly Cal EPA and here at the
3 Air Resources Board, we have embraced that effort both as a
4 public outreach and part of our mission.
5 Having said that, I would like to read the
6 Resolution before you for the record.
7 Whereas Californian's are blessed with a bounty of
8 natural wonders in their State and are supportive of a clean
9 environment for all, and whereas protecting and improving the
10 environment is one of California's most important challenges,
11 and whereas the practice of pollution prevention has moved
12 from potential to practical as one of the most favorable
13 strategies for maintaining a clean environment which offers
14 industrial efficiency, economic competitiveness and
15 environmental protection, and whereas National Pollution
16 Prevention Week, September twenty-first through
17 twenty-seventh, 1998, presents an opportunity for government
18 agencies to join forces with business, industry and
19 environmental groups and individuals to educate others about
20 this common sense approach to protecting our natural
21 resources, and whereas by committing to the ethic and
22 practice of pollution prevention, the Air Resources Board
23 will meet the challenges of improving air quality consistent
24 with its mission to protect public health, while considering
25 the effects of its actions on the economy, and whereas of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
171
1 notable importance to the pollution prevention movement is
2 the development and use of environmental technologies which
3 prevent or minimize the creation of waste streams for mobile
4 and stationary sources of air pollutants and which will
5 continue to make dramatic strides in the millennium, and
6 whereas individuals can make a difference in preventing air
7 pollution by practicing any of the ideas found in the
8 brochure, 50 Things You Can Do For Cleaner Air, which can be
9 obtained by calling the Air Resources Board at
10 1-800-End-Smog;
11 Therefore, be it resolved that the Air Resources
12 Board recognizes the week of September twenty-first through
13 twenty-seventh, 1998, as Pollution Prevention Week in
14 California, and urges its organizations, businesses and
15 citizens to participate in local and regional activities that
16 both educate and embrace the practice of pollution prevention
17 as a proven means of achieving a prosperous, healthy and
18 sustainable future for all Californians.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. We will.
20 We have before us this Resolution 98-45. Many of
21 us have already signed it.
22 So, I would entertain a motion to approve this
23 Resolution and have it framed and displayed wherever you
24 think is appropriate, Joe.
25 So, is there a motion to approve 98-45?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
172
1 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: So moved.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Moved by Supervisor Patrick, and
3 seconded by Supervisor Roberts.
4 Any discussion that we need to have further?
5 Very good. We will proceed with a voice vote.
6 All those in favor, say aye.
7 Any opposed?
8 Thank you, Joe.
9 You have one more quick item for us, and then I
10 will turn the time over to Supervisor Roberts.
11 MR. IRVIN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, and Members, I
12 wanted to bring your attention to a very beautiful poster
13 that was presented to us by the Ventura County Air Pollution
14 Control District.
15 Their Public Information Office has some very
16 creative talent. As you can see, this is a picture of the
17 sky.
18 It looks good for the camera, and a nice butterfly.
19 Anyhow, obviously this is a public outreach tool.
20 It says a few things as you look at it more, and
21 obviously we are going to have this appropriately displayed
22 here in the building.
23 Let me read to you real quickly the poem that is on
24 the back. This is from, I think I got this right, Chang
25 Chau, who is a philosopher from the third or forth century,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
173
1 B.C.
2 He said in this poem, I do not know whether I was
3 then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a
4 butterfly dreaming I am a man.
5 So, I thought about that, of course, before making
6 this presentation, it was nice for daydreaming.
7 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I vote for butterfly.
8 MR. IRVIN: But obviously it sort of shows that the
9 symbiotic relationship we have with nature, and vice versa,
10 so I think they have kind of captured the essence of the
11 message that we all try to take to individuals in the pursuit
12 of cleaner air, and we all have a responsibility here and an
13 outcome at stake.
14 Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We do want to recognize the
16 outreach element of the work for cleaner air. As you know,
17 there are a lot of things that you can do to touch people and
18 let them know that this is a still a concern and a problem.
19 Joe's team is a small group located on the fifth
20 floor that has been working to participate in outreach
21 advances and participated in the State Fair. Jack brought an
22 electric car over there and participated in a parade, and
23 they are doing the Gold Country Fair, and they participate,
24 as you know, in different areas around the State.
25 As you sit, particularly those Board Members that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
174
1 come from local districts, and think we ought to have a
2 presence in your community, please let us know. Joe's people
3 will be have a small budget where they can do some
4 sponsorship of an event here and there, and they are willing
5 to do that if you think it is important.
6 Supervisor Roberts.
7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: First of all, I am relieved
8 to see that wasn't the world's largest butterfly that we
9 killed.
10 I don't know what the message was in that poster,
11 but it's beautiful. I received, as part of my handouts
12 today, a report on the electric vehicle that we're involved
13 with that I'd asked for information on, and it struck me as
14 we were talking about the research reports that sometimes we
15 fund these things and we never hear about what is happening
16 to them, or what -- there is some pretty interesting
17 information that has come back on this, and somehow or other
18 it seems there should be maybe a closing of that loop, some
19 feedback that some of these, I think, these projects are so
20 esoteric that they might only have a very narrow focus and
21 their application might not be of interest to us, but I think
22 something like this WEV, the World Electric Vehicle, so
23 called, that we were the principal sponsor of, and all of the
24 things that rolled out from this in terms of production line,
25 studies and other things, I think would be of strong interest
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
175
1 to all of the Members of this Board, and I would hope that
2 maybe in the future sometime could become, you know, maybe
3 periodically, quarterly, or something, and that an item could
4 be scheduled to bring back some of the data and information
5 and some of the results of these programs.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mike, if could I ask
7 you --
8 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Publish a report annually to
9 give the results.
10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, let me just say this.
11 I agree with Ron. There needs to be a better
12 feedback loop, and so, why don't we, staff, I'll ask you when
13 Mike gets back to take this up with him, but why don't we
14 have an informational item that we can get in advance of
15 every -- whether it's four times a year, or twice a year,
16 let's see what we are looking at.
17 Ron, it may be --
18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I was just pulling out --
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: A couple times a year.
20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: But, you know, I was just
21 looking at this, and it was something that I was particularly
22 interested in, and we never did have a formal report.
23 I didn't know that we had the car, and the Zebra
24 Battery was something that, you know, you brought panels in
25 here, and they worked all over the world, and we talked about
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
176
1 that, and yet, when it comes down to it and there is some
2 performance data that we somehow we were left out of the
3 loop, and I would feel better that we have a more complete
4 picture of what's going on and what we are getting for our
5 money.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'll just direct staff to come
7 and put on the Agenda at least twice a year and give a
8 report, a written report and an oral compliment to that on
9 what we have learned and what has happened.
10 Okay. We will do that.
11 Dr. Friedman.
12 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I think it should be
13 analogous, not necessarily as thick, as the update that we
14 get annually on the research that we support.
15 We are making investments in more than research. I
16 think it is a very good idea.
17 It should take that same form and it would be very
18 helpful. I don't think it has to be done more than once a
19 year, to be candid.
20 What the Research Division has done, very
21 interestingly, has subdivided by year, so that the year that
22 you initiate something, you mention it and then you get
23 progress thereafter, but you start with the oldest stuff and
24 bring it right up to the present time.
25 They have done a good job.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
177
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah, but, Supervisor Roberts is
2 right on the money.
3 There are some things like the USC health effects
4 work, you know, we have given a lot of money there. I get
5 regular blurbs I see internally, mail and things like this,
6 but I don't think the Board has a chance to see where those
7 millions of dollars have gone, and we have a positive story
8 to tell.
9 I'm, also, by the way, I'm comfortable with some
10 research not working out on occasion. So, staff doesn't need
11 to fret about coming back and saying, hey, we invested a
12 couple hundred thousand dollars and it didn't bear fruit.
13 That is going to happen. That is what leadership
14 is about.
15 So, on occasion, but if you do that nine out of ten
16 times, we need a new team.
17 MR. CACKETTE: On rare occasion.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, you don't need to fret about
19 coming back and saying something didn't work out.
20 That is my view.
21 MR. CACKETTE: If I could also point out to the
22 Board Members that on the research programs themselves, you
23 should be getting, and if you are not, look for it, there is
24 a one-page kind of glossy two-sided thing that describes what
25 we have learned from every research program and that can help
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
178
1 supplement some of this, and we will try to do that maybe on
2 more programs that aren't so researchy, but like this one,
3 which was really a partnership investment program.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And there -- you know, we can,
5 let's try this a couple times a year thing, or less
6 frequently, but I think at least twice, even if it is just a
7 written report.
8 I am very willing, with your support, to have kind
9 of a, what would you call it, a liaison in individual
10 research projects.
11 For example, there is occasion when Joe is very
12 interested in a mobile one, you know, that he has been
13 watching for a number years and he wants to be brought in and
14 briefed, and Dr. Friedman has done that on occasion, so if
15 any of you have a research proposal in particular that you
16 like, that you want to track, we can arrange for you to be
17 briefed and brought in to working groups, I mean if you have
18 the time and inclination. We can certainly do that.
19 There is no reluctance, I don't think, to have you
20 involved.
21 By the way, on that point, today we just approved,
22 with diesel, this working group, and if you know anything as
23 Barbara knows about this San Joaquin work, you know, you
24 track what goes on there, this working group is likely to be
25 a really big deal, so I would imagine there would need to be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
179
1 a couple of you all to participate and attend these meetings
2 when it gets up and running.
3 So, if you would maybe think -- I mean, three or
4 four if you wanted, but at least two that would want to go
5 and participate in this, it would help the Board, because
6 when we come back in a couple of years and we are looking at
7 risk management activities, you can stand up and say, hey, I
8 have been involved, here is what I have learned, or this is
9 how the process has worked out.
10 So, I think this is about inclusiveness and just
11 being kept in the loop. Ron, good point, we will make sure
12 that happens.
13 Okay. Is there anything else?
14 All right. Then the August meeting of the
15 California Air Resources Board will now adjourn.
16 (Thereupon the August meeting of the Air
17 Resources Board was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.)
18 --o0o--
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
180
1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER
2
3 I, VICKI L. MEDEIROS, a Certified Shorthand
4 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:
5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the
6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, Vicki L.
7 Medeiros, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of
8 California, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting.
9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or
10 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any
11 way interested in the outcome of said hearing.
12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
13 this seventh day of September, 1998.
14
15
16
VICKI L. MEDEIROS
17 Certified Shorthand Reporter
License No. 7871
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345